Does radiometric dating disprove the bible

Posted by / 02-Jul-2017 12:10

Facts successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a hypothesis.

Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these variables and properly evaluating the big picture.

Such a view totally ignores the known forces at work within our sun.

Infinitely more likely is the possibility that our sun might alternate between small periods of shrinking and small periods of expansion, a kind of oscillation.

When great scientific ideas do fall, on rare occasions, they do so of many grievous wounds followed by the rethinking of the total picture.

The idea, literally worshiped in creationist circles, that you can disprove a theory by whipping out some cute, isolated "proof" that settles everything at once and for all, is not scientific.

Since careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, the earth can't be older than a few weeks! We do need to know something about the system under study. No one familiar with tides would assume that the rate of water going out is constant over weeks of time!

As a result, his arguments carry no scientific weight. I will refute every last "proof" of a young Earth listed in Dr. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago!Nor does he discuss the weaknesses in his arguments.(By comparison, Darwin was always mindful to point out potential problems and acknowledge the strongest opposing arguments.) In short, Dr. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!If that hypothesis has no credible competition, despite much work in the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar.If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which are confirmed by further observation and testing, then it might attain the status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork.

does radiometric dating disprove the bible-55does radiometric dating disprove the bible-86does radiometric dating disprove the bible-63