Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_ludwigm]

Changing rotation of the Earth? OK.
Changing speed of light? OK.
Changing constants of the physics? OK.

We reached the last days.

The changing of the rotation of the earth happens each time we have a major earthquake. We actually can measure a change to the rotation and axis tilt. It does appear that the constants of physics are pretty constant right now. And it appears that things did settle around 1829 or so. But it is my belief that this stasis is driven by God. Peter wrote about it in 2 Peter chapter 3. Here I believe Peter set a date for the last days as Jan 1829.

So for me the stasis is confirmation of God's word
...

You maliciously left out some words of my comment.

Changing rotation of the Earth? OK.
Changing speed of light? OK.
Changing constants of the physics? OK.

And all of them cease to change in the last decades, when we have the proper devices to measure them exactly? OK.
Final curves, which become linear in A.D. 2000 (now)? OK.

Are we all living in such special slice of the time?

We reached the last days.

The "calculations" of Setterfield are fixing on now, the last century, - or Januar 1929, if You like this date - because now one can not find any scientist who takes seriously the changing lightspeed or changing the rotation of Earth. Or changing constants.

I can comprehend that creationists, - like You, dear Franktalk - in sheer desperation can lean on a broken reed if the undefendable should be defended.

Sooner or later every child should learn that Santa and Easter Bunny don't come, the gifts arrive by the hand of the parents.

[_malkie]

Drifting,

I don't know what part of the UK you are in, but this is for you:

[_Drifting]

Drifting,

I don't know what part of the UK you are in, but this is for you:

Yes, we are suffering the wettest drought since records began...

[_Franktalk]

You maliciously left out some words of my comment.

I did not intend to distort what you said. I acknowledge that you accurately defended the scientific viewpoint in all of those subjects. If it appears that I did distort what you said then I am sorry.

There really is no argument between you and me, I acknowledge that what I say does not fit the current scientific model. I only enter into these discussions to point out that the current thinking of science does have some assumptions at the foundational level. People are free to believe what they wish. If in your mind there can not be any other explanation for projections back in time then that is your world. It just happens not to be my world.

[_Themis]

One other thing you have continued to ignore is dating methods and how different and independent dating methods are used to confirm they are accurate. This is significant, and something I think you miss.

The only dating method that I think is reliable is erosion. Even then it depends on an assumption of rainfall. I have studied many forms of dating but they all rely on assumptions I am not willing to make. You may, that is your choice.

That's because you don't spend anytime actually learning about them. Try going to BYU and ask some LDS scientists about it. Your agenda here is very clear.

[_Themis]

The only dating method that I think is reliable is erosion.

The computer you're using to see these words wouldn't exist if our understanding of quantum physics were wrong. Our understanding of quantum physics necessitates that half-lives are constant/inherent properties of hadronic matter.

We can also use other independent dating methods to confirm radioactive decay rates being constant in the past, but frank is not interested and misses the significance here.

[_Themis]

I only enter into these discussions to point out that the current thinking of science does have some assumptions at the foundational level.

Yet you have not doe this at all. Try using evidence to support your assertions. Science at least does not claim any absolutes, but you have avoided my examples so far about dating methods.

[_ludwigm]

People are free to believe what they wish.

Some people depend upon the einsteins.
Others upon the andersens.

Jedem das seine.

[_Franktalk]

There is some evidence of changing "constants" of nature. There are several groups looking into a range of physical constants that may have changed in the past. But what they can't find would be changes to the very fabric of space. That would change many things at once and may hide the changes in the data. But for those who have an interest here is a link to some current research.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/resea ... 03webb.pdf

But for those who refuse to consider the possibility that there could be changes back in time then you can add to your list of nuts jobs all of the people doing this work.

[_Themis]

There is some evidence of changing "constants" of nature. There are several groups looking into a range of physical constants that may have changed in the past. But what they can't find would be changes to the very fabric of space. That would change many things at once and may hide the changes in the data. But for those who have an interest here is a link to some current research.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/resea ... 03webb.pdf

But for those who refuse to consider the possibility that there could be changes back in time then you can add to your list of nuts jobs all of the people doing this work.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence specific to your literal beliefs about a global flood or 6-12k year old earth. You are still avoiding my examples of different and independent dating techniques. Your article does not really provide anything regarding what you want to believe.