- Video A
- Creationists damage Christianity? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-10)
CMIcreationstation | 6.VI.2018
- @ 9:18
Forensics you say is two things:
- collecting data
- making a story that will fit them
History actually comes in on more than just the latter, so, more:
- having a history involving a need to collect data
- collecting them and analysing them
- making a story which will fit both the data and the already known parts of history.
- @ 22:09 or a little before
While it is true that Geocentrism was very widely held so that at a time a serious Heliocentric (not just considering the idea nice sci fi, as Nicolas Oresme) would have been at a smaller percentage than "clinically insane" (how good clinical insanity back then was not decided like that!) ... it is totally envisageable that Geocentrism is actually totally true (absolute Geocentrism, that is), even if the proportions are inversed now.
Why? Because the "geography" of space is no more tested science (beyond certain points, like last object which can give trigonometry by angle of reflected sunlight on it) than history of the universe.
Unless, of course, you take the prima facie evidence of sight and inner ears (these latter saying earth is not moving as we stand on it) as the scientific argument it actually is.
As to Phlogiston, it certainly had a passing majority, but it was a fairly new theory (about a few decades) by the time it was rejected.
- Video B
- Archaeology supports the Bible (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-06)
CMIcreationstation | 14.III.2018
- 15:35 How can an archaeological discovery show that the magnetic field was 40 % stronger in AD 1000? So far you have mentioned THAT archaeology supports that, but not HOW ...
- 18:02 I do not support the idea of radioactive decay rates having been much faster in the recent past.
In Barry Setterfield's version, it also involves speed of light having been much faster - totally unnecessary if geocentrism accounts for trigonometry to "near stars" not being trigonometric and the stellar distances therefore possibly very much closer to us.
For Argon or Helium trapped in rocks, they could be from atmosphere ...
As to Potassium Argon and alpha decay resulting in Helium, one can also doubt that the half life was correctly measured in the first place.
With half life of Carbon 14, we can check it against historically identifiable organic material. Take a bone splinter from Charlemagne - he died in 814 so his bones are 1204 years old. If they contain 86.446 percent modern Carbon, this confirms the halflife of 5730 years.
You can't get any comparable confirmation for long half lives, and 5730 years is not a half life calculated in a lab, since Libby calculated 5568 years, not 5730 years.
For decaying carbon 14, it is easy to get material that is 1/3 or 1/4 the age of a halflife, historically dated, but for decaying potassium or uranium, it is impossible.
- 2300 BC Ebla Tablets?
That would have been between Joseph in Egypt (carbon date 2600 BC, as per Djoser if Joseph was "Imhotep") and birth of Moses (carbon date 1713 BC as per funeral ship of Sesostris III).
Note, it seems coherent texts in any language come from this time ...
- At 25:49 - it seems you have already drifted from the topic of archaeology.
Keaton Halley's "atheists can know morality, but only because atheism is wrong" is of course gold.
But it is another topic.
Now, nowhere on the archaeology topic did you mention carbon 14 and rising C14 levels up to the present level (which on my view was reached well before the present).
So, perhaps time to mention it : if Genesis 14 as per Osgood 1986 on CMI was at the end of Chalcolithic of En Geddi (Hazazon Tamar), this means it's carbon dated about 5000 years old but it is really from only about 4000 years ago.
This means the carbon 14 level was at least as low as in samples that are now 1000 years old, that being 88.606 percent modern Carbon, but probably even lower. Genesis 14 is thus still during the "carbon 14 rise".
You might want to take a look at my overview attempt over this carbon 14 rise: http://ppt.li/3zr
As you mentioned evolution based morality of Hitler, it may be noted that not all the movements often lumped together as Fascism share it. Notably, the other German Fascism, Austrofascism (actually a stage in the longer story of Christian Social Party) did not.
- Full link
= Creation vs. Evolution : Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method