The validity of the theory of special relativity and E=mc2 holds the key to evolution's being false

1. The age of the universe is determined independently of the speed of light I cited two ways to determine the age of the universe, neither of which depend upon knowing the speed of light: the level of microwave background radiation and measurement of expansion of the universe. I referenced descriptions of he methods. Pro had no rebuttal, Therefore the universe is old enough for evolution to have occurred and the resolution fails. The minimum age is also confirmed independently the coolest temperature of white dwarfs and turnoff point of main sequence stars. These establish the age as over 13 billion years. Pro had no rebuttal. The fifth method I cited was decay of U-238. U-238 dating is radiometric, in that it depends upon the decay rate of isotopes. Pro claims that U-238 dating is like carbon dating and requires knowledge of the original amounts of the isotope. That's incorrect. U-238 dating, like argon-argon dating, does not depend on knowing the initial amount. http://www.astro.ucla.edu... If an isotope A decays to B with half-life Ha and B hen decays to C with half-life Hb, then the ration of the quantities of B to C determines the age. We never needed to know how much A was in the sample. Pro's rebuttal claim is therefore false. Incidentally, most radiometric methods depend upon there being gaseous decay products. When the rock is molten, the gas is driven off, so the amount is zero. The dating then runs from the time the rock solidified. There are about 20 independent radiometric dating methods. They cross-check each other. Carbon dating is an exception to the genera methodology. Pro seems to think the assumptions in radiometric dating are not checked. They are cross-checked against a dozen or so non-radiometric methods. I cited four independent cross-checks for U-238 dating of the universe. Carbon dating is checked by sediment layers, coral growth, ice cores, dendrochronology, efflourescence, and radiometry based upon other isotopes. Those are the experiments that verify the science. 2. The speed of light is in fact constant Pro claimed that star angles could not possibly be measured accurately enough to compute the distance to them. He is saying, in effect, "I just cannot believe they can do that." But they can. the method is described and the results "The parallax technique works for stars out to a distance of several thousand light-years. (ly). The satellite Hipparchus, launched in 1997, has been used for many of these measurements. Many thousands of stars fall within parallax range, including Arcturus (37 ly), Sirius (8.6 ly), and Spica (220 ly)." http://www.christiananswers.net... The method uses very distant stars as a background reference. Keep in mind, we are discussing cross-checks for the speed of light being constant in the vacuum of space. I also referenced the method of calculating eclipses of the moons of Jupiter. Pro had no rebuttal to that. 3. Large uncertainties in the speed of light still would make the universe old enough I presented arguments and data that the earth is old enough for evolution, even if the methods of determine the age of the universe were some how in error. Pro had no rebuttal beyond blanket denial. 4. Evolution is verified to have occurred using the fossil record and DNA Pro references a classic false calculation of the probability of getting the DNA sequence of a simple life form. The calculation assumes that nucleotides are added one at a time to the chain, and that the ultimate long sequence depends upon getting them all in the right order sequentially. That is not remotely descriptive of how evolution works. The evolutionary process starts with single nucleotide and works to very short chains by mutations. If a mutation decreases the chance of survival, then that mutation will be discarded in favor of a different direction. Viruses are complex molecular sequences, replicating by not complex enough to be deemed life. Yet they evolve, and every year we need a new flu vaccine to counter the latest evolved version. A calculation done like the one Pro referenced could "prove" that we could not possibly need a new vaccine every year. The calculation is bogus. Pro made no rebuttal of the probability calculations I did related to DNA and evolution, he just presented his conclusion that it couldn't be. Pro is using what is called "God the Trickster" arguments. The idea is that God has planted all sort of clues that make sense mathematically and scientifically, but that they do not really tell what actually happened. I acknowledged at the outset that if miracles are allowed, then I cannot disprove the earth being created last week. The miracle could include all our memories and artifacts of the past. My rebuttal is valid within the realm of science, which is all that can be debated. Pro proclaims " So scientist can't change the law, so they will try to figure out how to make it fit with their theory of evolution??" Scientists work from data, if, hypothetically, new data is found about the age of the universe that doesn't fit with the data on evolution, then some new theory must be developed to explain the data that supports the current theory. The new data on the age of the universe woud be called into question as well as the theory of evolution. Possibly no explanation of the conflicting data is to be found, in which case conflicting theories are left unresolved. Understand that just about every scientist in the world is currently working on an unsolved problem. Scientific problems stay unsolved until a scientific solution is found. Religions work under no constraint to leave problems unsolved. A miracle believed as an act of faith can "explain" anything to the satisfaction of the believer. There are no cross-checks because faith always wins. However, religious explanations are not scientific ones. God the Trickster cannot be disproved. Personally, I wonder why some, not all, religious people believe that God isnot smart enough to accomplish His intent within the bounds of understandable laws of nature, and rather is forced to intervene to set things right. But I have no expertise in such thinking. ------------------------------------- Thanks to Pro for the debate. I like to do these from time to time. I don't think there is a chance that religious true believers will be convinced by scientific arguments. Nonetheless, it is useful for many others to understand the nature of the controversies.