Posted on 02/05/2014 7:12:10 AM PST by edcoil
From Mr. Ham.
"Here is a report by Dr. Al Mohler that really nails what the debate was all about. A very insightful article. I urge you all to read it and spread it around:"
(Excerpt) Read more at albertmohler.com ...
radiometric dating vs the potato peeler:
http://www.rtgmin.org/2012/06/08/three-radiometric-dating-assumptions/
No I haven’t. Do you have a link?
That is an obvious example where Young Earth narrative falls apart.
Check out post #16. They don't let that "obvious point" get in the way.
:) Nope, don’t have a link one! JK
Thanks. You anticipated my question.
That it is just assumed that dating methods shown accurate for thousands of years apply to millions of years.
That is the same as saying its just assumed that the observable laws of science don't have an expiration date.
That is the same as saying that they do have one.
Good luck with that.
LOL, I love these threads :)
???? LOL,
I get it, so everyday could be my birthday?
If time dilation in general relativity means that the earth is both 4.5 billion years old AND 6,000 years old, then length contraction says that the Empire State Building is in my garage.
What’s totally confused is the date of the earth vs the creation date of man. The earth is old. Man in the likeness of God could be 6000 years old. This creation means when man first received a soul. The first Adam and Eve of the Bible with free will.
That could explain why we can see light from stars that are millions of miles away when it takes much longer than 6K years to reach here, maybe its just a few thousand miles at the same time.
But which time is my watch running on ?
:)
He can teach his kids what they want, no law against that.
His Young Earth claims are the most problematic, which is why there are old Earth Creationists. They realized the required convolutions of fact and logic were too great for them to argue.
We definitely see what appears to be starlight.
Nope but If I had been travelinlg at ten times the speed of light faster than you everday since the day you were born then your birth day might have been only yesterday to me. How long ago was it for you? The same effect could be working in Genesis 1 which is told from an eyewitness point of view. What literally took 7 days from a first person point of view then could appear to have taken millions of years from today's third person removed perspective. Time is relative.
You are changing the argument. Radioisotope dating isn’t a scientific law. It is a dating process used by scientists which has certain inherent assumptions that affect the outcome.
Ken Ham does not believe that any scientific law has an expiration date. Again what scientific law does Ken Ham say doesn’t apply hundreds of years ago. You said they he argues that NO scientific law applies hundreds of years ago. So please name ONE scientific law that Ken Ham argues doesn’t apply hundreds of years ago?
I am not going to argue dating methods with you. I am asking you to defend your original assertion that.
Ken Ham argued that “there is not a single law of science observed today that we can assume applied even a few hundred years ago.”
There are people that don’t think he should be allowed to teach his kids or me and my kids whatever he wants. Bill Nye is one of them which was the entire reason for the debate. As a conservative you should oppose that opinion.
Humans were living in a time bubble where they would experience what appeared to be a 24 hour day, but in actuality millions of years had passed? Far out!
That's Special relativity silly not General relativity.
The one you cite can be shown by simple math and the following.
It comes from light being measured as exactly the same speed regardless of the inertial frame of reference, which is different than with the speed of matter which is measured as the speed differences.
Learned that in physics a lifetime ago.
That doesn't help the young Earthers though.
Nye didn't argue that at all in the debate so I will save that for a relevant thread if one ever comes up. Its irrelevant to this subject at hand.
1) I don't believe scientific Creationism should be taught in science classes , for reasons already cited
2) I believe that evolutionists calling (historical) evolution type theories ‘a fact’ is wrong. It displays an arrogance and just gives those like Ham an argument. Atheists love to do that.
They are obviously not facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.