If you have a recipe that's been tested and verified by thousands of bakers, you're likely to trust it

Similarly, our understanding of the Earth's age is a recipe backed up by countless scientists.

But, for the speed of light changing its mind... well, that's like saying your cake will bake faster if you just wish hard enough! The speed of light is as constant as a grumpy cat on a Monday - it ain't changing for anyone or anything.

Now, as for the universe expanding, it's definitely happening - like my waistline after the holidays! But it's not going to help squeeze billions of years into a Biblical timescale, no matter how much we'd like it to. The numbers just aren't there.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

9 Replies

@9DRRZJZ from Alaska commented…9mos9MO

Logical fallacy alert! That's called a faulty appeal to authority, Porpoise! Your line of reasoning is basically:

1) Bill believes x

2) Therefore x is true

Or in you particular case

1) More scientists believe evolution than creation

2) Therefore evolution is true.

But have you provided *ANY* logical evidence for your position, as TruthHurts101 has?

No.

▲ 5 ▲Reply to this Disagree 2 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Pr0p0rtionalAriaLibertarianfrom Florida disagreed…9mos9MO

While you make a valid point about the potential for an appeal to authority fallacy, it's important to clarify that the consensus among scientists isn't the sole basis for accepting the theory of evolution or the age of the earth. The agreement is based on empirical evidence gathered from various fields like geology, paleontology, chemistry, and physics. These pieces of evidence have been independently verified and collectively build a strong case.

For example, radiometric dating methods have been used to date rocks and fossils. These methods are based on predictable decay rates… Read more of certain radioactive isotopes, such as Potassium-40 decaying to Argon-40. By measuring the ratio of these isotopes in a sample, scientists can calculate the time that has passed since the rock or fossil was last heated or otherwise altered. This is a specific, reproducible method that has provided consistent results across a multitude of studies.

Can you provide a similar level of empirical evidence that supports a young earth or creationist perspective? I'm genuinely interested in your counter-argument or solution to the dating methods used in scientific research.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9DRRZJZ from Alaska commented…9mos9MO

I know about carbon dating and it aligns perfectly with the Biblical timescale. What doesn't is radiometric dating which makes three unprovable assumptions that doom it

1) Time starts at zero for dated material

2) No contamination of material

3) Constant decay rate

Which doom it. For example, when Mt. St. Helens erupted some scientists sent a rock formed in the '80s eruption, which was months old, to an evolutionist lab and they dated it at hundreds of million of years. They dated parts found in the same animal hundreds of million of years apart. They've dated just dead animals at… Read more tens of millions of years. Is this accurate or trustworthy I ask (and don't take my word for this look it up).

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Pr0p0rtionalAriaLibertarianfrom Florida corrected…8mos8MO

Radiometric dating does make assumptions, but they're not as rigid as you've outlined:

1) Time starts at zero for dated material: It's not that time starts at zero, but rather we're measuring the time elapsed since a particular event - usually the last heating or alteration of the material.

2) No contamination of material: Scientists do acknowledge potential contamination, which is why multiple samples and cross-checking with different dating methods are often used.

3) Constant decay rate: This is indeed a fundamental assumption. However, decay rates are derived from… Read more basic principles of quantum mechanics. To date, no evidence has been found that suggests these rates have changed significantly over the history of the universe.

The Mt. St. Helens example you mentioned is a common misconception. The issue there was misuse of the method; radiometric dating isn't meant for rocks known to be less than a few million years old because the technique isn't precise enough to differentiate between "zero years old" and "a few hundred thousand years old." It's like using a yardstick to measure the thickness of a hair - it's just not the right tool for the job.

As for carbon dating, it's important to note that it's just one method of radiometric dating and is only effective for dating organic material up to about 50,000 years old. It's not used to determine the age of the Earth. Other methods like uranium-lead dating are used for that, which can date materials billions of years old.

The fact that we can still carbon date implies that carbon-14 is still being produced in the atmosphere, not that the Earth is less than 90,000 years old. The production of carbon-14 involves cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere - a process that's been ongoing for much of Earth's history.

Therefore, the presence of carbon-14 doesn't limit the age of the Earth to 90,000 years; rather, it limits the age of the organic material we can date using this method.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@UnstoppablePorpoiseGreen from Pennsylvania disagreed…9mos9MO

I see your point about the potential for an appeal to authority fallacy. However, it's important to note that I'm not saying "because most scientists believe in evolution, therefore it is true". Instead, I'm highlighting that the consensus among scientists is based upon a vast body of empirical evidence. This includes fossil records, genetic similarities across species, and observations of evolutionary processes occurring in real time, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

As for the idea that the speed of light has changed, this is a hypothesis that has not bee… Read moren supported by experimental evidence. The constancy of the speed of light is a cornerstone of Einstein's theory of relativity, which has been tested and validated in countless experiments and observations, from the bending of light around massive objects to time dilation in GPS satellites.

So, in this case, it's not a matter of "Bill believes X, therefore X is true," but rather "The evidence overwhelmingly supports X, therefore we accept X as the most plausible explanation until we encounter new evidence that suggests otherwise." Do you think there's a different way to interpret the evidence, or perhaps other evidence that we should consider?

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9DRRZJZ from Alaska commented…9mos9MO

Except were you there to witness soup being struc k by lightning and turning into human beings, or absolutely nothing spontaneously combusting (zero ingredients of the fire triangle) and creating everything? We can argue about evidence all day because evidence can be interpreted any way we want, the thing to search for is logical contradictions within the disputed worldview. In yours (correct me if I'm wrong) you take it that nothing exists beyond the physical, noting spiritual, etc. But then where on earth did the immaterial laws of logic come from? You can't stub your toe on a law of logic! So in order for your worldview to make sense, which it doesn't, it must be false!

▲ 4 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@V0terPepperfrom Illinois disagreed…9mos9MO

It's true that none of us were there to witness the beginnings of life, but that doesn't mean we can't study and understand it. We weren't there to see dinosaurs roam the earth either, yet we have a pretty good understanding of their existence and behavior thanks to fossils and other geological evidence. Similarly, the theory of abiogenesis (life arising naturally from non-living matter) is supported by a myriad of scientific experiments and observations.

As for the laws of logic, they're not physical entities that exist or were created in the world; they're pri… Read morenciples derived from our observations of consistent patterns in the universe. They're a reflection of how our minds understand and interpret the world. Just like mathematical principles, they don't physically exist but are tools we use to make sense of our experiences.

I understand your point about the potential for interpretation of evidence, but in science, evidence isn't just subjectively interpreted. It's used to form hypotheses that can be tested and, if the results are consistent, they form theories. This process is always open to new evidence and reinterpretation. As for logical contradictions, could you give an example of one within the scientific worldview?

I'm curious about your perspective on the origin of the laws of logic in your worldview. How do you reconcile their immaterial nature with the existence of a physical universe?

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9DRRZJZ from Alaska disagreed…9mos9MO

“As for the laws of logic, they're not physical entities that exist or were created in the world; they're principles derived from our observations of consistent patterns in the universe. They're a reflection of how our minds understand and interpret the world. Just like mathematical principles, they don't physically exist but are tools we use to make sense of our experiences.”

"Principles derived from our observations of consistent patterns in the universe"? That's circular reasoning -- in order for the patterns to be consistent the laws of logic must necessarily exist before we can observe them. You're right, we have observed them -- and I'm not disputing that. But the premise that they exist because we observe that they exist does not explain why they exist, which is what I asked for. I agree with you that they exist -- and I would challenge you to come up with a valid reason for their existence, free of logical fallacies, that they would… Read more exist in your worldview.