Accelerated Radioactive Decay

Your perception is accurate. Creationists generally do not argue from knowledge, but from ignorance.Little do they know that accelerated decay entails an extra output of heat in the same amount of time. And they do not need to know this, because they don't care about the mechanisms or logical consequences of what they propose.They are using an ad hoc argument in order to fit reality into their warped world view. If Scripture and reality are not in agreement on something, then it's reality that's wrong. But, not to worry, that's easily fixed: just propose some solution - any solution - that'll make 'reality' (i.e. the fantasy that it becomes) concur with Scripture and all is well. Consistency is not an issue.And if pressed about problems like that of the extra heat, they can quite easily fix that too: if an alteration like acceleration is a possibility, then why not propose that the decay mechanism must have been different in the past in yet another way, so as not to produce the extra heat? After all, we do not see the effects of the extra heat, do we? The oceans are still here, aren't they? So, accelerated decay cannot have produced extra heat in the same span of time. Therefore it didn't. End of discussion.You see? Scriptural Physics is quite simple."Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and [...] know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

Literalist,Let me show you something funny. A while back in this thread, I said:

quote:

---

They are using an ad hoc argument in order to fit reality into their warped world view.

---

You quoted me on that, as you may remember.Right after I said that, I went on to say:

quote:

---

If Scripture and reality are not in agreement on something, then it's reality that's wrong. But, not to worry, that's easily fixed: just propose some solution - any solution - that'll make 'reality' (i.e. the fantasy that it becomes) concur with Scripture and all is well.

---

Then, in your last post, you say this:

quote:

---

The main complaint against supernaturally accelerated decay rates is that it would destroy life or boil off the oceans. But what if (and it is pure speculation on my part) the energy had been used to make the earth's center molten? What if all the water was frozen "in the beginning"?

---

Can you see what is happening here? You are doing exactly what I said a YEC^* does. If there's a problem, what did I say a YEC will do? They will - and I'll quote myself again - "just propose some solution - any solution - that'll make 'reality' [...] concur with Scripture [...]".So, here you are, faced with a problem - the excess heat of accelerated radioactive decay - and what do you do? You say: "what if this, what if that?" What does that look like, you think? I'll tell you: it looks like ad hoc hypothesizing. Just in case you are unfamiliar with the term, here's a description I pulled from Wikipedia: ^*I didn't say "YEC's" at the time, I said "creationists", but because I realised Jar considers himself a creationist and he does not make the mistakes I'm on about here, I owe it to him to make the distinction from now on.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I don't think I can answer your post any more succinctly that Jar did. I only have this to add: You may not have explicitly disagreed, but you practice ad hoc reasoning. To me, that constitutes implicit disagreement. If God is what he is said to be, then I see no reason why he should have to use accelerated decay at all. Why can he not just flick his fingers and have the situation he desires in place, just like that?The whole line of reasoning behind accelerated radioactive decay points to a twisted mind-set: on the one hand a pseudo-scientific idea is introduced to justify and "explain" the literal Genesis interpretation of a young earth, and then, when real scientific objections to it are raised, ad hoc arguments are invoked to counter those objections. And they're not just any ad hoc arguments, but ad hoc arguments of the worst kind: the God-can-do-anything kind.Why bother bringing up or defending "scientific" arguments at all? God-can-do-anything basically dismisses science altogether.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Some mockery may indeed be intended by some opponents, but essentially saying "If God accelerated decay rates..." is nothing else than saying "If decay rates are accelerated..." Naming God explicitly is merely an acknowledgement of the way religious people formulate their arguments, and does not make an objection unscientific. Usually, the reasoning is that if something is the way religious people state it is, then some observations would be impossible. Yet these observations are made. So the conclusion is drawn that things are not the way religious people state it is.And at that point, religious ad hoc reasoning usually kicks in.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins