ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Dave's Unanswered Questions, Cont'd
Problems With a Young Earth
- Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
- Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
- What evidence do you have independent of the Bible that converges on an age of 6,000 years for the age of the earth?
- If the universe were only 6,000 years old, there could be no stars, or galaxies, or quasars, or galactic superclusters, that are more than 6,000 light years away. But numerous methods of determining distances which all result in similar values demonstrate that the closest galaxies are several hundred thousand light years away, and the most distant visible objects are almost 14 billion light years away. How do you explain the observation of these objects?
- 6,000 years is not nearly enough time for a solar system to form, to say nothing of a galaxy, or a galactic cluster, or a galactic supercluster. How does your “hypothesis” explain the existence of these objects?
- It would take at least several million years for the giant molecular cloud that birthed the sun to undergo gravitational collapse to the point of self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion. How do you explain this happening in only 6,000 years?
- It would take at least another few millions years for the planets to have formed through a process of gravitational accretion. How did this happen in only 6,000 years?
- Photons produced in nucleosynthesis in the sun's core take a minimum of several tens of thousands of years to reach the photosphere, and an appreciable quantity would take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach the photosphere. Why don’t we see the sun’s power output increasing noticeably from one year to the next if it is only 6,000 years old?
- Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000-year half-life, or thereabouts, and could easily exist from the point of "creation." Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that would have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years.
- The half-life of Uranium 235 is 704 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, essentially none of this U-235 should have decayed by now. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, it should be essentially impossible to detect any decay products of U-238. Why does observation demonstrate that an appreciable fraction of both has decayed since the earth was formed?
- Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor.
- How do you the cool the surface of an iron sphere massing over 10^24 Kg to room temperature in less than 6,000 years?
- Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
- For any of these things to have happened in 6,000 years or less would have required multiple miracles, Dave. But you say you believe in science. In fact you claim, overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that you accept "90-95%" of science. So if you believe in science, Dave, why do you also believe in miracles? Isn't that just a little bit inconsistent? And a little bit useless, in that you can wave away any phenomenon with an unknown cause by appeal to miracles?
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
