I don't disagree with the rate of decay, as I said.
I beg to differ, but you did say you disagreed the day before this latest response of yours.
There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.
I think I would have noticed if you had retracted it before now.
You didn't answer the other points I made about C-14 - Amount of biomass has been constant, amount in atmosphere has been constant. Your example of gravity also isn't very good since universal gravitational attraction is clearly seen in galaxies, etc. You can't compare a change in fundamental physical law to a change in the amount of material on a planet anyway.
Actually, there's no guarantee that the theory of universal gravitation is constant through the entire universe. Indeed, something is interfering with it, thus why every galaxy we can see except those in the Local Group are redshifted - and the more redshifted the further they are away, as if they're accelerating away from us.
You are still just begging the question, and presenting the same arguments, without addressing the fact that the amount of biomass in the past and C-14 in the atmosphere in the past is speculative, and therefore radiometric dating beyond a certain point is speculative, and does not belong to science.
False. I was pressing you on the rate of decay, since you indicated that you thought it could have changed radically in the past Since you've conceded that the rate of decay would have remained constant, I'll switch my focus to the other points you raised. However, the first one (that the amount of biomass is the same) is not actually an assumption used in carbon dating. A smaller amount of biomass wouldn't cause organisms to take in more c14, and a larger amount of biomass wouldn't cause them to take in less.
What matters for carbon dating is whether the rate of decay has changed and whether we can account for the times when c14 was either greater or less than it is now. That's why we use tree rings and also use carbon dating on objects where we can confirm the date through other methods. That lets us account for c14 fluctuations. For example
, we've determined that there was a major influx of cosmic rays about 1,200 years ago, enough to increase the amount of c14 in tree rings from that time period by a noticeable percentage. That means we can account for that fluctuation. So, very simply, we don't require that the amount of c14 remains constant, just that we can keep track of the times when it changes.
Biomass and atmosphere have both been non-existent in the past, according to anyone. The question really is, when was that? Either way it has changed.
Of course. But the YEC assumption, that God essentially snapped his fingers and caused all life forms (and the life cycles that support them) to come into existence over a few days a bit more than 6,000 years ago, is not tenable. Whereas the longer time frames implicit in geology, evolution, and so on have one key advantage - they don't require things to have happened quickly, which YECism does.
The earths magnetic field was greater in the past, according to non-speculative science. This would cause a decrease in the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere.
Which can easily be accounted for in carbon dating.
I do see the problem. I've been letting you get away with ipse dixit, but now it's time to post sources.
I have been posting sources. If you are missing them, then that is your fault. You do not get to accuse me of ipse dixit simply because you haven't paid close enough attention to my posts.
I did. It was in this link (note, this is where I got the info I posted just above). That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.
That was also the part where I told you that that was old, as in 1982 like it says at the top. Now we have IRMS
The fact that it is three decades old does not invalidate it. If you can point out where the conclusions of this website are wrong, that is another story.
Yes, I know that. I told you to ask because the burden of proof is on you to dispute a scientific paper. Do you have a PhD by chance?
No. Do you?
Also, do you know what actual PhDs the authors of this paper you're referring to have? It is entirely possible to get a PhD in a totally non-scientific field. If you don't, you should check.
I'm sure you have plenty of doubts about the truth, unfortunately.
No, I have plenty of doubts, period. I don't claim to know what "the truth" is. That's because I'm a skeptic. I do not simply accept what someone tells me - doesn't matter who it is - as the truth. I require them to provide solid evidence to support it. And so far, you have utterly failed to provide even the slightest shred of real support for YECism as science. All you've done is try to call science that disagrees with YECism into question, and then arbitrarily claimed that the rest of science supports it. That isn't even slightly convincing.
That's because of the different methods of looking for evidence. Edit: The evolutionists are not looking for whether or not it has happened, because they presuppose it has not.
You mean like creationists presuppose that the Biblical creation and Biblical flood happened? No, I don't think so. Scientists have a vested interest in not simply accepting such presuppositions as fact, because it invalidates the whole system of scientific methodology and undercuts the basis of the science we use today.
Age doesn't matter in the dogs part, it does in the earth part. Why are you making this an argument?
Because you're trying to have it both ways - to claim that the age doesn't matter in some things, but it does in others. It either matters in everything, or it matters in nothing.
That's because I gave you some that do, such as the obscure fellow Dawkins.
This is a lie. You didn't even mention Dawkins in this thread until just now.
Not based on doctrine they didn't, which is the point.
Which doctrine? There are literally thousands of Christian doctrines, and at least some of them do indeed buy into supernatural explanations for natural phenomena
(such as disease). Note the writer of that page trying to explain that you need supernatural intervention for some diseases and not for others, that some are caused by germs and others by demons.
"Reality" as you call it must be shown through the scientific method
Do you even understand how the scientific method works? It's a process by which people come up with explanations which fit existing observations - meaning they haven't been falsified. It isn't about determining whether something is true, it's about determining whether it's false.
Argument from authority? I have to question whether or not you understood what he meant by that anyway. Let him know that there are no fingers or eyes mentioned, because the fingers and eyes of organisms have the same genetic codes. THESE genetic codes are from DIFFERENT organisms which supposedly have the same common ancestor. Let your friend know that he would probably have to be a geneticist to begin to answer this question.
I asked him to help me figure out what the page was saying because I could only get a general idea. He told me that the information on this page was about showing where the initiation codons for genes were, not showing that organisms can't change evolutionarily. At this point, I seriously doubt that you have sufficient background in biology and genetics to understand what anything on that page means.
It may have something to do with the fact that the different animals they supposedly turned into have different amounts of chromosomes and polyploidy.
Which proves...? Again, I'm being quite serious. I do not think this means what you think it does. Most organisms - in fact, the vast majority of organisms, and most of the ones on that list - are diploid, not polyploid. And there is no reason that a diploid organism can't survive and even thrive with an extra pair or two of chromosomes. Polyploidy is when you have three paired chromosomes or more in a set, instead of just two (for example, 69 chromosomes in sets of threes instead of 46 in sets of twos). I think you would find if you looked that the polyploid organisms follow different lines of descent than the diploid ones
Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's just evidence! This is my whole point, which you seem to be missing. Both evolution and creation rely on assumptions of their validity, it HAS to be that way, and yet you keep insisting that evolution must be true, regardless of the fact that you've admitted repeatedly that everything that "proves" evolution is based on them.
Actually, I haven't once insisted evolution must be true. I'm not sure why you think I did.
By the way, every single branch of science stands on certain assumptions. Evolution is no different in that respect. That's why we call them scientific theories. The difference between science and creationism is that scientific assumptions are based only on what we can observe (even if it's historical) and test, whereas creationism's assumptions are based on doctrine from an ancient book, written by people who didn't know or care what science was. It's like the difference between an educated guess and a WAG, except that scientific theories are far more sound than educated guesses.