Ain\'t nature wonderful (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 17, 2010, 18:33 (5160 days ago) @ David Turell

I am working from the prospectus of a skeptic. I see patterns in the data, I see assumptions made that do not necessarily convince me, and I am talking my way through rectifying these differences, and using you as a sounding board ;) Hope you don't mind.-Here is the thing, over the last several years there has been some debate over the constant of the speed of light, which by association, would have an affect on the accuracy of atomic dating methods. ( I have read several articles and research papers on the topic from multiple sources and they all point to the fact that they can't agree, but the statisticians agree that there is a trend in the data to support the theory that light is not a constant.) -Secondly, when they are dating all of these fossils, they are using the atomic clocks of the surrounding geology. Any geophysicist worth his salt can point to a number of reasons why this is a really bad idea, and inaccurate as hell, but just take the time to do open-minded research on radiometric dating methods and issues/concerns. unfortunately, unbiased websites on this topic are hard to come by as they all want to seem polarized towards creation and evolution. Common issues that concern me as someone working in Geophysics are rock morphology and the effects one parent/daughter measurements. Substrate porosity and the hydrological effect on the data, temperature and pressure variations over time that could have affected the data. etc. In the world of geology, we are learning that the Earth simply does not move or operate according to the time scale that we have placed on her, and that makes me question many other things about our timescale.-So, to put it bluntly, I am not thoroughly convinced that all the data stacks to be equal to what is being claimed, so I am trying to make a critical re-examination of the available data to try and find out where the truth lies. In my experience, it is some where in the middle in just about any argument. -Now, to give equal measure of criticism to the fundamentalist on the creation side, I most certainly do not believe in a 6000 year old planet. Even according to what I read in the Bible I see that there is room for vast quantities of scarcely mentioned time. Particularly within the realm of Genesis 1 & 2, as I have mentioned before. You presented challenges to me in the form of the amount of water, and the number of species for an ark like rescue, so I presented sources that estimate the vast quantities of water in the mantle, more than 5 times the volume of our current ocean system, and articles references the different families of species to account for the 'according to their kind' statement in the account of Noah. -I question the establishment because it is there to be questioned, particularly when their answers do not fit with the data.