Evidence for God from Science

dad wrote: I say about 4400 years. Before that, the spiritual and physical state (rather than the physical only present state) saw no decay universally.
If we look at the daughter now, the only portion of that material that was produced by decay was the bits since the split, which left us in this physical only state.

Dad has on several occasions brought up this idea of a change at the time of Peleg 4400 years ago. My basic question is: Is there any scientific evidence in favor of or against this idea? To answer this question, he would have to provide more details than he has till now.

Let's consider a tree that died 5400 years ago according to standard scientific theory and the information dad has so far supplied:

1) Traditional science: The tree incorporated 14C until it died at which time the uptake of 14C stopped. From that point forward, the amount of 14C decayed according to the standard half-life rule. By using standard scientific methods, the tree would carbon date to 5400 years old.

2) "The Split" science: The tree incorporated 14C until it died at which time the uptake of 14C stopped. The 14C isotope did not decay until the split, 1000 years after the tree died. From that point (4400 years ago) forward, the amount of 14C decayed according to the standard half-life rule. By using standard scientific methods, the tree would carbon date to 4400 years old. [NB: I am assuming no other changes to standard science than the ones dad has proposed.]

So according to the information supplied by dad, the example of the tree above demonstrates that nothing would radiodate to over 4400 years ago because before then there was no radioactive decay. Yet many things radiodate to much older than 4400 years. This suggests that there may be other changes: amount of 14C was lower, minerals formed according to different laws of chemistry, etc. What were these other changes and do they provide another way of explaining with numbers the scientifically measured amounts of parent and daughter elements in materials?

The overarching problem with the approach that dad is following is that he denies that the past was consistent. That is all good and well as an assertion, but he has yet to prove it other than by special pleading. The other problem is that it leads to radical skepticism, i.e. if you don't know past behaved, how do you know the future will behave? What does that do to the field of medicine, for example? How do you know that the treatment will work if the future does not reflect the past?

In the case of dating it is the same, and I think you do a good job of putting out the options. I don't have a scientific explanation for his scenario.

There is no basis in Dad's theory for any scientific examination in the past.

It is also very weak hermeneutically.

Some links to resources about it include:

http://www.innvista.com/culture/religio ... /peleg.htm

http://www.kjvbible.org/peleg.html

http://www.jpdawson.com/pelgnet/Tabcont.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /peleg.asp

AIG, the leading YEC Web-Site advises against the Peleg division scenario here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

In terms of science and logic, as far as I can see, all it is, is a "get out of Jail card" to allow the proponents to claim whatever they want based upon their hermeneutic of Scripture. Science has no meaning beyond 4,400 years ago.

The problems are myriad.

Small wonder, even YEC proponents in general want nothing to do with it.

There seems to be a pretty strong concentration of followers in the KJV only movement.