That’s not how it works, man.
1 Like
It’s not just varves. You need to explain why all the dozen+ independent dating proxies show the same ages well older than 6000 years. Varves, ice core samples, ocean sediment samples, dendrochronology, coral growth bands, speleothems, etc. You need to explain the consilience of the all the independent data.
1 Like
Yeah, it really is, man. The criterion of falsifiability is paramount in empirical/operational science.
Preserved trace biomaterial doesn’t provide you with a date so it isn’t a test of other dating methods.
We can experimentally test and verify the speed at which biomolecules degrade. Dr Brian Thomas of ICR recently was awarded his PhD in Paleobiochemistry from a secular university in the UK on this very topic, and did original research (which is now published and available through ICR). This is how falsification works. Soft dino tissue is an independent way to show that radiometric dating fails. This is indeed how science works.
Actually, no. There isn’t a scientific discipline on Earth that doesn’t have at least a few contrary data points!
To overturn some disciplines requires HUNDREDS of contrary data points … PLUS an over-arching scenario description that makes sense of the contrary data.
You are ignoring solid physical sciences for dating… you are ignoring solid biological sciences for preservation … and you are ignoring logical problems for things like how come there are no placental mammals in Australia (except for recent arrivals)?
1 Like
Yes, that’s your claim. Still, it’s the responsibility of scientists to make explicit, bold predictions that follow from their hypotheses. That allows for testing. “Predictions” after the fact are useless. So what bus hit you that prevented you from predicting dinosaur proteins?
I think you have him there. When dinosaurs lived in the Arctic, the earth was in a warm period, not an ice age. Then again, the ice age doesn’t fit into a flood chronology. Where would the mammoths have lived before the flood if not in the Arctic along with the dinosaurs? And why would they need thick fur in such a case?
Sorry, but Popper never really had a good handle on how science actually works. Nor do you.
6 Likes
Because no one had sat down to work out whether the chemistry would support it.
I know what all of those terms mean. Enjoy your time on the forum.
2 Likes
Please provide a reference to peer-reviewed science if you want to convince me that the “claim has been addressed.”
1 Like
I think this exchange demonstrates clearly that @PDPrice does not follow the same rules as us. What ever he means by science, it isn’t science as we know it as actual scientists.
7 Likes
That would only be valid if the test conditions precisely duplicated the conditions the material in the fossil underwent. That obviously wasn’t done since the specific conditions over 70 million years aren’t known. So you have no test.
I don’t think so, no. But that’s because those predictions could only ever be based on the information available at the time about how quickly various forms of organic material deteriorates and becomes replaced with minerals.
It turns out that information was incomplete, and we now know that under certain circumstances, organic material can last much longer than they used to think.
“An evolutionary worldview” makes no predictions about how long organic material can be expected to last under different conditions. That would be based on the local conditions of physics, chemistry, and geology. What are these molecules and structures made of, what forces and variables are they exposed to, how do they change over time? So it is totally dependent on these local factors, in the same way that putting your bag of frozen vegetables in your freezer or in the open sun significantly affects how long it will last.
There is no such thing as THE rate of decomposition of organic material. It completely depends on what the local conditions are like and has nothing to do with the age of the Earth and universe.
That too would depend on the local conditions, wouldn’t it? I mean I hope we can agree that freezers preserve organic material much better than direct sunlight does, even on a Young Earth Creationist worldview.
We can see and understand how the question isn’t actually based on “worldviews”, but ultimately depends on our understanding of physics and chemistry.
No because for the reasons explained above, neither of these supposed “worldviews” intrinsically predict the rates of decomposition of organic material under different environmental conditions.
The Earth and universe being young doesn’t say anything about how quickly organic material should decompose. Neither does the Earth and universe being old.
I hope I have made it obvious why your question is misconceived.
4 Likes
A post was split to a new topic: The “Evolutionary Worldview”
Can you cite a source for this claim? Where can I go to learn, for each respective discipline, exactly how many “contrary data points” are required to overturn it, and who gets to decide when it has been overturned?
Einstein is famously quoted at saying:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Obviously Einstein must not have understood how science works, either.
This is my point. Whether some individual happened to record a prediction and get it published is irrelevant. That’s a question of history, not philosophy. The point is, when you look at what YEC would expect to find and compare that with what evolutionists would expect to find, soft tissue in dino bones very clearly fits with YEC and does not fit with evolution. That’s why there’s been a huge effort to scramble and come up with some way to explain these results, rather than simply saying, “ok, these bones must not be as old as we thought.”
I think you have him there. When dinosaurs lived in the Arctic, the earth was in a warm period, not an ice age. Then again, the ice age doesn’t fit into a flood chronology.
Why would you say that? Actually it takes the global Flood to even explain how we got an Ice Age (shortly afterward) to begin with. Warm oceans combined with lots of volcanic ash blocking out the rays of the sun in the atmosphere, akin to a nuclear winter, gives you the right conditions for an Ice Age.
Sorry, but Popper never really had a good handle on how science actually works. Nor do you.
I know how science works in practice and I also know how it is supposed to work in theory. They are two very different things. In practice people believe what they want to believe.
No. Can you name one theory that has agreed with every empirical observation? Just name one.
1 Like
4 posts were split to a new topic: Referring to YECs as Dr
The claim has been addressed. If you choose not to acknowledge it because it wasn’t published in one of your preferred places, that’s entirely on you. The truth is the truth regardless of whether a team of evolutionists agrees to sign off on it. Here’s a bit more detail from Dr Brian Thomas on this paper you cited:
Okay this topic seems to have run its course. The goal here should be to understand and be understood.
@PDPrice it will be worth seeing if there are any valuable off topics here, but we are playing by different rules here. If we understand evidence in different ways, we are not going to agree on the data.
1 Like