grey anatomy s10e06 online dating Archaeomagnetic dating definition

Hovind has made no attempt to grapple with the BIG PICTURE. Meanwhile, an avalanche of burgeoning data continue to increase our confidence in an ancient Earth and cosmos. I will also supply two or three examples which have no reasonable interpretation save that our Earth is old. That's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began.

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!

archaeomagnetic dating definition-81archaeomagnetic dating definition-66archaeomagnetic dating definition-47

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.

This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on a single, isolated argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists into more trouble than possibly anything else.

Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not give little, gold ribbons to certify the accuracy of our proofs!

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!

Contrary data and isolated arguments are important in that they carry the potential for bringing down a theory or hypothesis.

That grand potential is seldom realized in the light of further investigation.

Billions of years from now the depletion of the sun's hydrogen will upset the sun's internal balance, and the sun will again undergo some long term changes.

But, that has absolutely nothing to do with the shrinking-sun argument above, which attempts to prove that the solar system is less than 5 million years old.

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!