Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Observational science and historical science

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 11:36:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Ham insisted there was a difference between observed science and 'historical science'. He defined historical science as observations which we could not have witnessed directly from the past. He asserted to date the Earth based on current observations of radioactive decay rates, snow fall rate as related to ice cores dating, continental drift rates or sedimentation rates would be fallacious because we cannot assume these rates would have been the same in the past. I feel it would be a greater assumption to consider these rates were, or have ever been, different than we observe today. Especially since it would require ALL of these to be different than observations today. Thoughts?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 11:49:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 11:36:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
In the Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Ham insisted there was a difference between observed science and 'historical science'. He defined historical science as observations which we could not have witnessed directly from the past. He asserted to date the Earth based on current observations of radioactive decay rates, snow fall rate as related to ice cores dating, continental drift rates or sedimentation rates would be fallacious because we cannot assume these rates would have been the same in the past. I feel it would be a greater assumption to consider these rates were, or have ever been, different than we observe today. Especially since it would require ALL of these to be different than observations today. Thoughts?

I have recently discovered something about the assertion that radioactive decay rates were accelerated in the past making it appear the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I discovered that giving creationists the best chance(it being accelerated until uranium dating was invented and 10,000 years); uranium would have to have a decay rate 454545.45 times greater than now; that means life would never have been able to survive; it would have been lethally irradiated all over the planet. So seeing as life has been around during those 10,000 years they propose it's pretty much impossible that decay rates could've been accelerated high enough for young earth creationism.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 12:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 11:49:38 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:36:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
In the Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Ham insisted there was a difference between observed science and 'historical science'. He defined historical science as observations which we could not have witnessed directly from the past. He asserted to date the Earth based on current observations of radioactive decay rates, snow fall rate as related to ice cores dating, continental drift rates or sedimentation rates would be fallacious because we cannot assume these rates would have been the same in the past. I feel it would be a greater assumption to consider these rates were, or have ever been, different than we observe today. Especially since it would require ALL of these to be different than observations today. Thoughts?

I have recently discovered something about the assertion that radioactive decay rates were accelerated in the past making it appear the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I discovered that giving creationists the best chance(it being accelerated until uranium dating was invented and 10,000 years); uranium would have to have a decay rate 454545.45 times greater than now; that means life would never have been able to survive; it would have been lethally irradiated all over the planet. So seeing as life has been around during those 10,000 years they propose it's pretty much impossible that decay rates could've been accelerated high enough for young earth creationism.

Interesting. Bill Nye pointed out if ice cores with 680,000 layers (equivalent to 680,000 years by current observations) were only 4000 years old (since Noah's flood) there would have had to of been 170 summer/winter cycles per year!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 12:20:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 12:08:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:49:38 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:36:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
In the Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Ham insisted there was a difference between observed science and 'historical science'. He defined historical science as observations which we could not have witnessed directly from the past. He asserted to date the Earth based on current observations of radioactive decay rates, snow fall rate as related to ice cores dating, continental drift rates or sedimentation rates would be fallacious because we cannot assume these rates would have been the same in the past. I feel it would be a greater assumption to consider these rates were, or have ever been, different than we observe today. Especially since it would require ALL of these to be different than observations today. Thoughts?

I have recently discovered something about the assertion that radioactive decay rates were accelerated in the past making it appear the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I discovered that giving creationists the best chance(it being accelerated until uranium dating was invented and 10,000 years); uranium would have to have a decay rate 454545.45 times greater than now; that means life would never have been able to survive; it would have been lethally irradiated all over the planet. So seeing as life has been around during those 10,000 years they propose it's pretty much impossible that decay rates could've been accelerated high enough for young earth creationism.

Interesting. Bill Nye pointed out if ice cores with 680,000 layers (equivalent to 680,000 years by current observations) were only 4000 years old (since Noah's flood) there would have had to of been 170 summer/winter cycles per year!

That sounds like too many winters and summers.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 12:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 12:08:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:49:38 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:36:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
In the Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Ham insisted there was a difference between observed science and 'historical science'. He defined historical science as observations which we could not have witnessed directly from the past. He asserted to date the Earth based on current observations of radioactive decay rates, snow fall rate as related to ice cores dating, continental drift rates or sedimentation rates would be fallacious because we cannot assume these rates would have been the same in the past. I feel it would be a greater assumption to consider these rates were, or have ever been, different than we observe today. Especially since it would require ALL of these to be different than observations today. Thoughts?

I have recently discovered something about the assertion that radioactive decay rates were accelerated in the past making it appear the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I discovered that giving creationists the best chance(it being accelerated until uranium dating was invented and 10,000 years); uranium would have to have a decay rate 454545.45 times greater than now; that means life would never have been able to survive; it would have been lethally irradiated all over the planet. So seeing as life has been around during those 10,000 years they propose it's pretty much impossible that decay rates could've been accelerated high enough for young earth creationism.

Interesting. Bill Nye pointed out if ice cores with 680,000 layers (equivalent to 680,000 years by current observations) were only 4000 years old (since Noah's flood) there would have had to of been 170 summer/winter cycles per year!

I decided to check continental drift rates and discovered that they would have to be moving at an average of 100.5 km/yr until 1950(about the time we started measuring drift.)
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 1:21:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 12:32:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/5/2014 12:08:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:49:38 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/5/2014 11:36:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
In the Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Ham insisted there was a difference between observed science and 'historical science'. He defined historical science as observations which we could not have witnessed directly from the past. He asserted to date the Earth based on current observations of radioactive decay rates, snow fall rate as related to ice cores dating, continental drift rates or sedimentation rates would be fallacious because we cannot assume these rates would have been the same in the past. I feel it would be a greater assumption to consider these rates were, or have ever been, different than we observe today. Especially since it would require ALL of these to be different than observations today. Thoughts?

I have recently discovered something about the assertion that radioactive decay rates were accelerated in the past making it appear the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I discovered that giving creationists the best chance(it being accelerated until uranium dating was invented and 10,000 years); uranium would have to have a decay rate 454545.45 times greater than now; that means life would never have been able to survive; it would have been lethally irradiated all over the planet. So seeing as life has been around during those 10,000 years they propose it's pretty much impossible that decay rates could've been accelerated high enough for young earth creationism.

Interesting. Bill Nye pointed out if ice cores with 680,000 layers (equivalent to 680,000 years by current observations) were only 4000 years old (since Noah's flood) there would have had to of been 170 summer/winter cycles per year!

I decided to check continental drift rates and discovered that they would have to be moving at an average of 100.5 km/yr until 1950(about the time we started measuring drift.)

That is quite a contrast with the current observation of 1 centimeter per year!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 3:02:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 11:36:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
In the Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Ham insisted there was a difference between observed science and 'historical science'. He defined historical science as observations which we could not have witnessed directly from the past. He asserted to date the Earth based on current observations of radioactive decay rates, snow fall rate as related to ice cores dating, continental drift rates or sedimentation rates would be fallacious because we cannot assume these rates would have been the same in the past. I feel it would be a greater assumption to consider these rates were, or have ever been, different than we observe today. Especially since it would require ALL of these to be different than observations today. Thoughts?

Well I wasn't there, so I don't really know if Ken Ham exists or not.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian