ALL SEX DATING
clear and disable history
- 10 year old online dating
- penn badgley and blake lively dating
- Free sex chat girls pink
- Punjabi girl sex in cyprus
- profile advice online dating
- Threesome chat de
- western talent dating service
- Free mobile sex chat in skype names
- single parent dating three points arizona
- german men dating
- datingpersonalsguide com
- guide to online dating for asians
Carbon dating age universe
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe is an extensive list of arguments for young Earth creationism (YEC), compiled by Don Batten in June 2009 for Creation Ministries International (CMI). Batten collects a variety of supposed uncertainties in science dealing with the past that could allow one to simultaneously maintain belief in the validity of the scientific method and the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis through confirmation bias.
Although the list claims to have 101 points, several are just reworded duplicates and one is even a copy of the preceding item.
Almost every reference link in the original article either goes directly to creationist sources, or to popular science magazines which support creationism.
In the few cases where reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited, their content is severely misrepresented or incorrectly interpreted.
Ultimately, the article seeks to persuade by force of numbers, rather than force of argument.
No scientific method can prove the age of the universe or the earth, and that includes the ones we have listed here.
Although age indicators are called "clocks" they aren't, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past.Always the starting time of the "clock" has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time.Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.The assumptions conventionally used in obtaining scientific estimates of the age of the Earth and the universe look supremely cautious compared to such a leap of faith.The reference to the "way[s] in which the speed of the clock has varied over time" are a very thinly veiled attack on a bedrock assumption of scientific practice, uniformitarianism, in (for the sake of argument) contradistinction to catastrophism.Assuming good faith qua ignorance, this attack is simply a misconstruction of uniformitarianism - as a scientific assumption it does not claim that major disruptive events like ice ages, meteor impacts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and so on have never happened (since plenty of people alive today have witnessed or been affected by one or more of them), but rather that the specific physical laws governing their causes and effects have remained constant over time.Assuming good faith qua scientific disagreement with uniformitarianism, none of the creationist theories predicated on alternatives to the constancy of physical laws over time can be valid without encountering big problems very quickly; cf.If we don't assume good faith, it appears that CMI is combining a false dilemma with the Nirvana fallacy - one theory can't yet answer all possible questions, so the other should be accepted unquestioningly.This logic is both fallacious (wrong in its pattern of reasoning) and incorrect (wrong in the facts it reasons with).There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old.