Christianity Vs. Evolution
"And the earth IS a privileged planet, contrary to your claim. There is no other place in the known universe that is capable of sustaining life"
I should comment on this. Your argument could also apply to all planets. You could equally say that Venus is a privileged planet, because it has sulphuric acid rain, or Saturn is a privileged planet because it has an extensive ring system.
Why should the ability to sustain life (as we understand it) be the sole characteristic which makes a planet special? Each planet is different, claiming that our home is the centre of the universe just because it's our home seems a little human-o-centric.
As for it being expected to be the centre because God created it, see my previous post about Occam's Razor and supernaturalism being unscientific.
Stu EarthÂs Magnetic Field- Have you forgotten everything that we have discussed earlier on this topic? If the field was in reversal then the dissipating energy HAS to be stored somewhere, but IT IS NOT. Thus the earthÂs magnetic field is DYING! I have also previously shown that there is much evidence for rapid field reversals which is not explained through the uniformitarian theories. Rapid field reversals are recorded in solidified lava flows that have cooled very quickly, there have been a number of these discovered. This has been known (and ignored) for a long time.
Dark Matter- Some of the evidence for dark matter that you have stated seems to only be phenomenon that occur after applying the ÂuniqueÂ Big Bang calculations, in other words, these phenomenon donÂt exists outside a Big Bang theory.
Bullet Cluster- I think that this page is relevant: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4626 As is stated in the link, it is very misleading to state that dark matter has been observed. Dark matter was not observed, and by its very definition it CAN NOT be observed. The EFFECT of dark matter was detected, not dark matter itself. There seems to be at least one other theory that can explain the observations in the bullet cluster, so dark matter is not the only explanation for the observation.
No, the fact that we have no idea what dark matter is does not invalidate it. But when most of the universe is supposed to be made of these hypothesized particles, it makes the idea of dark matter seem a little silly.
Science is the study of the natural world, just as you state, the key word here is STUDY. Science is all about the STUDY of the world around us, if this study leads us to the conclusion that the world was supernaturally made, then this conclusion was made scientifically. The origins of the universe have no impact whatsoever on the study of it.
Privileged Planets- I think the sustaining of life is far more of a privilege then sulphuric acid rain or lunar ring systems! I doubt that I need to convince you of the wonders of life and that the unique characteristics of earth are far more delightful than any other unique feature of any other known planet.
I havenÂt seen any evidence to show that the universe is homogeneous, yet we have at least one piece of evidence for a galactocentric universe (quantized red shifts). So I donÂt need to rely on the earth being our home as evidence for a galactocentric, bounded and isotropic universe.
Earth is not the only known place that can sustain life. Jupiter's moon Europa has a liquid ocean covered by ice that is rich in volcanic minerals. Mars is also thought to have sustained life in the past
Sorry for the delay.
Pre-flood Weather Â The main cause of convection and the reason we have polar ice caps instead of an equatorial ice band or something is the unequal heating of the Earth. It is common knowledge that an area at the equator receives much more heat than an equal area at one of the poles. Do people vacation in the Caribbean or the South Pole?
Soft Tissue Preservation Â http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html. Why are there not more examples of well preserved dinosaurs? ShouldnÂt dinosaurs generally be as well preserved as species more recently extinct according to evolutionists?
EarthÂs Magnetic Field Â IÂm afraid I donÂt have time to discuss this now. In three or four weeks, IÂll probably have a lot more time. I am getting tired of having to say this every time itÂs mentioned, but there are plenty of other topics to discuss and it seems that you and Stu have resumed this argument anyways.
Accelerated Nuclear Decay Â One experiment performed once can hardly be considered Âgood evidence.Â You have presented many points which you believe disprove evolution. It would be Âinfantile and irresponsibleÂ of me to acknowledge that there is no good response to one of your points and keep believing in evolution anyways. It would be very dogmatic and biased to see an incontrovertible disproof of something and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that it is wrong. I propose that nothing can explain this kind of acceleration in decay rates. This is not a matter of whether the young Earth theory is perfect but of whether it is even tenable. Therefore, like some of the points you have raised, it requires a response of some sort.
Radiocarbon Dating Â Your link presents another counterexample. Counterexamples such as this one are always a little difficult to discuss. The experiments presented by creationists have not been reproduced, at least not by anyone other than the original experimenters, and are only presented on creationist sites. We cannot fairly determine if the samples were contaminated, if the dating system was misused, etc just reading about it in an internet article or two. When it stands in such stark contrast to countless mainstream experiments and the general consensus of the scientific community, you must forgive me for being somewhat skeptical.
I am curious as to why radiocarbon dating correlates with other dating methods. If it is flawed to such an extreme degree, it shouldnÂt correlate with any other dating methods (which themselves shouldnÂt be giving dates higher than 6,000 years). Some examples: http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm, http://www.tim-thompson.com/luminescence.html, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html.
Pre-flood Weather- The reason we have polar ice caps is due to the ice age. Creationist and uniformitarians alike believe that the extant ice caps are remnants of the last ice age. Polar ice cap formations WILL NOT inevitably form from uneven solar radiation heating, which seems to be your reasoning. In fact under uniformitarian models ice ages can not form, creation models are the only ones capable of creating an ice age. Convection from the ice caps is the main drive for global weather, as is seen by the global effects of the southern oscillation which is purely driven by polar ice caps (see wikipedia on the el nino-southern oscillation).
Soft Tissue Preservation- The link you provided seems to deal more with the debate of the subject rather than providing an explanation of it. The skeleton of the dinosaur itself showed fossilization, it was inside the bones that the soft tissue and cells were found. The reason that many more examples of this have not been found (there has been others) is because paleontologists presume that there will not be any soft tissue in the bones that they dig up (because they believe that it isnÂt possible) so they donÂt bother to examine the bones for internal soft tissue. Actually when the scientist discovered the soft tissue and told other experts about the smell (from the decomposition) of the bones, they said to her that all the fossils from Hells Creek (where the fossil was dug from) smell like that!!! So I would assume that if they bothered to investigate further they would find that more of the fossils contained soft tissue.
EarthÂs Magnetic Field- What is the reason why you canÂt discuss this topic but are willing to discuss others? All I am after is an admission that the evidence on this topic clearly favours the creationist model. You can see from the discussion with stu that this is the case.
Accelerated Nuclear Decay- You state that this experiment canÂt be considered good evidence, but fail to show why it is bad evidence. The experiment can not be faulted, by you or anyone, so please tell me why it is not good evidence. IÂm not sure that I follow the next few sentences, you seem state it would be irresponsible to ignore incontrovertible proof, and then you imply that this is what I am doing. If this is the case then why have you continually ignored every piece of evidence against evolution? The theory of evolution is full of gigantic chasms (most of which we havenÂt discussed yet), so I wouldnÂt get too $%!@y. Accelerated nuclear decay and the experiments associated with it are only new theories so it would be irresponsible to condemn the theory so soon. With such a revolutionary concept, time has to be taken to develop it. Even if you do want to condemn it you still have to explain the helium that is extant in zircon crystals. The fact is that the helium is proof of accelerated nuclear decay, there is no other explanation.
Radiocarbon Dating- I presume that you are talking about C14 in various substances (diamonds and coal) that shouldnÂt be there. This is a common phenomenon that has been known for a long time. It has been recorded by creationists and uniformitarians alike, and there is no other explanation then the creationist one. It is clear that the substances ARE NOT as old as they are claimed to be. This is another example of you ignoring the evidence against evolution. You also condemn the evidence because it is only presented in creationist media and not secular media. This should not be surprising due to the fact it is impossible for any creationist to get anything publish in secular journals. Not because of the content of the work trying to get published, but purely because the author is a creationist. ÂGoodÂ you might say, but this is not how the scientific system works, all evidence must be discussed and scrutinized, not ignored, which is unfortunately what happens.
Radiometric Dating- The reason that you see the dates as concordant is because you donÂt see or ignore the dates that are discordant. I have previously shown many dates and experiments that show very discordant results. The dating process itself disregards discordant dates, labelling them ÂcontaminatedÂ for no other reason then because they are not the results that were expected. It is interesting to note that the only results that are scrutinized are the ones that are not expected, if ALL results were scrutinized, including the ones that are expected, then more discordant results would emerge. The whole process of radiometric dating is geared towards concordant dates. The fact is that discordant dates DO exist, you just choose to ignore them.