In several threads, the answer to my philosophical queries and challenges is to ignore them entirely, and instead opt for the so-called
evidence that scientists bring to the table.
For example, in the Abiogenesis thread, Kuresus made this comment in post 181 / http://
EvC Forum: Abiogenesis -->
EvC Forum: Abiogenesis :
the earliest evidence we have for life is from rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old. Also, we know the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
This is done as a default deference to
fact and
empericism so as to avoid the philosophical challenge as irrelevant, since it is based in a system of Biblical facts, that have been proven false beyond question.
I wish to quote some good explaination against just one aspect of the assumptions that reside within the famed
facts to which so many anchor their worldview. I know it is lengthy for an intitial post, but it brings forward some clear challenges.
We're dealing in particular here with the 'age of rocks'...
Assumption one: No Daughter component
First, it is assumed by the rock-dating expert that the system must have initially contained none of its daughter component. In order to accurately calculate the age of a rock specimen, there can be no lead (daughter) in the original rock. It takes 4.5 billion years for half the amount of uranium to decay into a certain amount of lead. We analyze a rock and discover it has that certain amount of lead in it. The article we publish would state, with full conviction, “This rock was 4.5 billion years old as scientifically dated using high-tech procedures by Dr. Credentials who has a double Ph.D. in rock dating.” Who will doubt how old the rock is? Almost no one. But hold on for a minute. Suppose God created that rock with some of the lead (daughter) already in it. How can the expert differentiate between the lead that God put there originally and the lead that came from uranium decay?
Science tells us there is absolutely no difference in the physical and chemical properties between the lead in the specimen that has been lead since the beginning and the lead that came through the decay process. So, no one can know how much lead was there to begin with. Consequently, for laboratory “accuracy” the evolutionist must arbitrarily decide, “there was no lead (daughter element) there to begin with; I can’t prove it, but I will assume (pretend) this to be true.”
It is mathematically impossible to have two variables in one equation and be able to solve the equation. One variable in every rock dating equation that is unknown is the initial amount of the daughter element and the second unknown variable is the age of the specimen. Yet claims are constantly made that one can determine the age of the rock in spite of the two unknowns.
An example of this would be a burning candle. If you walk into a room and find a candle burning, you can measure the rate at which it is burning. Assuming that it has been burning at that constant rate the entire time, can you determine 1) how tall the candle was when it was lit and 2) how long it has been burning? The answer to this is an emphatic no! There are two unknowns in a single equation.
Every time you are told that a rock is several million or billion or even tens of thousands of years old, the scientist doing the dating has assumed no daughter element initially existed. This means he guesses every time. Do we scientists guesses as valid fact and then proceed to the belief that the Bible must be wrong when it talks of 24 hour creation days about 6,000 years ago? Surely Not!
Assumption Two: No Contamination
The second assumption of the scientist dating the rock is that his specimen of rock had never been contaminated. Nothing could have come into or out of the rock that could alter the dating analysis to give an erroneous date. This would demand an “Isolated System” for the rock’s environment. As Dr. Henry Morris says in
Scientific Creationism, there is no such thing in nature as an isolated system. The closed system is an ideal concept convenient for analysis, but non-existent in the real world. Morris mentions that the idea of a system remaining isolated for millions of years becomes an absurdity.
One reaction that even more seriously alters the dating data is the radioactive radon gas that is one of the intermediates of the thirteen-step decay process of uranium becoming lead. Radon gas is an inert element that does not chemically react with any other element and therefore stays in a gaseous state. A radioactive element that is a gas and has a half-life of several years would have bubbled away from the rock specimen that is being analyzed. Extremely high temperatures and varying pressures, which are predicted in the old earth model, would also affect the bubbling away to various degrees. The result of the gain and/or loss of daughter and intermediate elements (such as radon gas bubbling away) would seriously affect the ability to accurately date the rock.
Some evolutionists claim that every molecule in the universe has been in at least four different substances since the big bang. But evolutionists cannot have both; they cannot have molecules jumping around from one substance to another , and, molecules steadfast and immovable, as they would have to be in an isolated system in order to make their dating techniques work.
There fore, the second assumption needed to affix old dates to rocks is not valid. Rocks
do get contaminated as things seep into them, and rocks change their constituents as things leech out and bubble out of them. An isolated system sounds good and must be assumed to have accuracy in dating rocks, but it does not occur in nature.
Assumption three: Constant Rate of Decay
The third assumption listed by Dr. Henry Morris
(Scientific Creationism, p. 138) is that, “The process rate must have always been the same.” Remember our candle analogy from assumption #1? What if there was an additional complication? What if the candle was not burning at a constant rate? What if a breeze had blown across it for a few minutes right after it was first lit which made it burn faster? That would make the equation contain three unknown variables. If it is not possible to solve an equation with two unknowns, it will not help a whole lot to add a third unknown!
(Jobe Martin D.M.D. Th.M. / from his book
The Evolution of a Creationist / Chapter 9 ”Earth: Young Or Old? Give Me Facts, Not Assumptions’ pgs. 214-217)
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2