Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That was kind of my point. Decomposition rates afford very precise dates relative to the billions of years found in evolutionary timescales.
So we have learned that dinosaurs probably died only within the last million years (because there's so much preserved organic material found in their remains that should have been long gone) ...
One knee-jerk response might be "because different data agree with each other" ... but that is simply not true. There are countless features or phenomena in the universe that do NOT agree with conventional age estimates and these are simply explained away as unreliable, or when all explanation fails.... anomalous.
Evidence for this sanctification?But we're not discussing supposed minimum ages of the universe.. you're changing the subject.
The age of the earth has been sanctified as 4.5 billion years.
The age of the universe has been sanctified as 13.7 billion years.
These ages have been decreed as beyond any question by the 'scientific community', (ignoring issues raised in the OP... that they are largely based on assumptions about the past.)
Look at something like the belief in Abiogenesis. There is nothing happening on earth today that suggests life can generate itself from non-life. Yet belief that Abiogenesis actually happened is faithfully and slavishly adhered to by the scientific community with absolutely zero room for criticism.
Unless you can provide a source justifying your assertions (not typical creo nonsense), then there's zero reason for me to even entertain the OP.Why should we believe that the same institutions that still can't figure out where the Earth's oceans came from (among countless other features and phenomena), have also irrefutably demonstrated that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Only recently has the geologic community rejected uniformitarianism as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry into Earth's history, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. After bitterly resisting the widespread evidence of past earth catastrophe, geologists finally came around to realizing their prior assumptions were wrong.
So why can't today's evolutionists and old-earth believers accept the possibility that radioactive decay rates may have been different in the past as well? Why must the radioactive uniformitarian assumption to be removed from questioning? Why is this particular uniformitarian assumption regarded as a sanctified truth of the universe?
One knee-jerk response might be "because different data agree with each other" ... but that is simply not true. There are countless features or phenomena in the universe that do NOT agree with conventional age estimates and these are simply explained away as unreliable, or when all explanation fails.... anomalous.
Now for a question I think the evolutionists know the answer to, whether they want to admit it or not:
IF radiometric dating methods generally returned ages that could not possibly accomodate the time required for an evolutionary narrative, would you accept it as a disproof of Evolution (universal common descent).... OR... would you simply assume that the dating method is unreliable? (due to past fluctuations in decay rates, contamination, or some other anomaly)
Are you doing this very thing for any phenomena that might demonstrate evidence of a younger earth/solar system, etc. ? (e.g. when we find original undecayed protein in dinosaur fossils, or likewise discovering features of a planet in our solar system which should have decayed a long, long time ago if the body were that old)
(substantive responses only please. If all you have is emotional hand-waving or a snide flippant comment then please just move along)
Okay... just as a thought-experiment, what if it was demonstrated that the topology of the entire earth today is largely the result of a global catastrophe that occurred only several thousand years ago?
So we have learned that dinosaurs probably died only within the last million years (because there's so much preserved organic material found in their remains that should have been long gone) ...
It’s worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, we’ve never recovered dinosaur DNA - fragments of it, but never the real stuff. This is interesting, because we have recovered DNA from things before - DNA can last around 7 million years. We have DNA from things like mammoths, for instance.[ citation needed ]
But never dinosaurs. In fact, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, we should be able to find DNA in just about anything we find.
Science does not accept such findings as being 100% correct. We are always learning new information that can affect present conclusions.Why do you use the word “sanctified”? Might I suggest an online dictionary...
sanctify | Definition of sanctify in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Where did you read that?
And creationists just never give us credit for how difficult it is to maintain this conspiracy in complete secrecy. I mean all it would take for the whole thing to blow up in our faces was if some incompetent participant in the conspiracy were to acknowledge its existence in some public place, such as an internet forum. Fortunately the chances of that happening are essentially zero!The predictable creationist response to this is that dinosaur DNA is being found, it's just being covered up by the evil evolutionist conspiracy. Everything that contradicts creationism can be explained away with conspiracies.
That alone says a lot. It's why people aren't kidding when they call Evolution a religion.
(cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, organic, biological, etc.)
Only recently has the geologic community rejected uniformitarianism as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry into Earth's history, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present.
After bitterly resisting the widespread evidence of past earth catastrophe, geologists finally came around to realizing their prior assumptions were wrong.
So why can't today's evolutionists and old-earth believers accept the possibility that radioactive decay rates may have been different in the past as well?
The age of the earth has been sanctified as 4.5 billion years.
The age of the universe has been sanctified as 13.7 billion years.
These ages have been decreed as beyond any question by the 'scientific community', (ignoring issues raised in the OP... that they are largely based on assumptions about the past.)
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a belief.Belief in Abiogenesis is simply a necessity for an evolutionary worldview, and therefore, uncontested, absolutely removed from the bounds of 'scientific' debate.
lifepsyop is misrepresenting a genuine paradigm shift. The potential role of impacts, or other extreme events was generally considered insignificant, or non-existent. The approach to geology was represented by the phrase "The present is the key to the past". All observed geological features were explicable by processes that could be examined at work today. Exceptions were noted, but not accorded much weight.When did that happen? Because I'm not aware of geologists rejecting uniformitarianism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?