Re: Old/new universe perspective contradictions

Thank you. I am aware of these matters in general terms, and even their
mechanisms to some degree (I hve a physics background). I was perhaps
not clear. I am looking for more specific instances where if x (dating
for example) is invalid, then x' which we trust (nuclear medicine)
wouldn't work for us either. I can make the assertion about nuclear
medicine, but I'm not so sure I can back it up with specifics as to how
nuclear medicine would kill me if the young-earth assertions were true.
That's more the idea. I thought this list if they were aware of, or
might be able to think of specific examples where the reverse
consequences of the YEC assertion would be unpleasant, or at least
represent a contradiction with respect to a YEC's acceptance.

I am not concerned so much about arguing with young-earthers, but with
the task of educating/informing folks who are typically unpolarized and
non-technical. The context is a formative education outreach undertaking
in which many of the folks participating will not be technoids. Many of
the better known young earth arguments are about plausibility, not
weight of facts. The problem there is that most folks who are not
technical are not going to be able to assess the weight of evidence. So
it occurs to me that perhaps an option to consider is counter-arguments
that are in the form of plausibility argument, but which have a sound
basis in fact for those inclined to check further.

That's where the question came from. What are the negative consequences
of the unorthodox explanations that are driven by the young-earth
imperative? Perhaps such arguments exist, ...perhaps they don't. But, I
though this was as good a community to query as one might ask for!

JimA

Bert Massie wrote:

> radioactive decay is based on basic nuclear physics and the same
> applies to nuclear medicine, nuclear weapons, and dating. dating by
> isotopes is only one way of dating. the bottom line is that a lot of
> things, in fact an enormity of things, fit together in a consistent
> story. for example, astonomy, and remember that light travels at a
> finite speed so that looking at distance galaxies means that we look
> back in time, fits into the entire picture
>
> bert
>
> Jim Armstrong wrote:
>
>> I have an open question that I hope will stimulate some responses
>> that may be useful in discussions relating to old/new earth
>> perspectives. Some (most?) dating technologies are based on
>> radioactive decay. It seems that a person might be in a state of
>> contradiction when rejecting the radioactive decay evidence for an
>> old universe, yet fully trusting the tools of nuclear medicine. I’m
>> wondering if that notion (or something similar) can be clearly
>> substantiated. Are there other reasonably easy to articulate and
>> understand instances of contradiction of this sort?
>> Regards
>> Jim Armstrong
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 3 18:29:39 2005