From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 16:07:39 EDT
Hi Wayne, you wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:54 AM
If you claim that the light from stars greater than 6006 years ago
cannot be distinguished from the light of stars 6005 years ago and there
is no way to distinguish this fact except by a book (and your particular
interpretation of the dates in that book), perhaps this could be made
"consistent". And of course the radioactive decay produces should
be in exactly the correct proportions + decay that follows current
rates over a period of 6006 yrs. So perhaps the claim itself could
in principle be made logically consistent.
But scientific explanations require some way to discriminate
this information independent of a book, an assertion from
an authority on cosmology, or any other scientist for that
matter. Moreover, it can be discovered (in
principle) by a sweeper woman in Thailand who has no
formal scientific education or credentials whatsoever.
I suppose if I claim
that my philosophy starts with a book (and my personal
interpretation of that book of course), that we cannot test this
except to believe that book (and my personal interpretation thereof),
then I suppose there might be some way to make this "consistent".
But it is definitely importing something extra-scientific into the
picture.
****
GRM: Remember what I said, created with the appearance of age. That is
the key--appearance of age. This 'theory' then claims that no matter what
radiometric age you calculate, it is mere appearances.
Secondly, I would contend that it is a logically consistent
viewpoint--just a dumb one. There is little one can do to actually refute
the concept that the universe was created with an appearance of age 6004
years ago or for that matter 6005, 6006 etc. Any observational differences
are mere appearance. It explains everything, as does the nonesense (and Dave
uses the term correctly) that the universe was created 5 seconds ago with an
appearance of age. But logically one can't refute that view. One simply
disbelieves it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 16:07:53 EDT