Radioactive dating of fossils depends on the decay of
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!
Great care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a balanced judgment of the known facts.
Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality.
To sum up our first point, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time.
It's the type of blunder one might find in a high school science project.
In its formative years, before our sun's core became hot and dense enough to ignite the fusion process and, as a result, check the gravitational collapse, our sun did do some prolonged shrinking.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!Just as obvious, at least to the experts, our sun could not have been continuously shrinking over millions of years as described by some creationists.Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!) If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total 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.(The better the model, the more farfetched the loopholes are.) If you crave the certainty of a real "proof," the final word as it were, then you had better stick to mathematics or logic!Those are the only arenas where absolute proof plays any serious role.The one thread running through "scientific" creationism is a fixation on particular arguments or "proofs" to the exclusion of all else.This shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific process by people who should know better. Hovind, for example, is blissfully ignorant of the relevant literature surrounding his "proofs." Consequently, his audience is given no hint of what the "competition" has to say.