PDA

View Full Version : How Old is This Thing?



Teallaura
01-20-2014, 11:27 PM
Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

Thanks!

Cerebrum123
01-21-2014, 06:21 AM
Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

Thanks!

For a YEC position I recommend looking here. http://creation.com/
There is a lot to go through though, everything from what the Hebrew in Genesis means, to why the consensus interpretations of the evidence aren't accepted. The key articles page under the "Topics" list is probably a good start though.

Jedidiah
01-21-2014, 01:55 PM
Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

Thanks!I am not agnostic, I believe in an Old Earth, but I do not see any faith related issues of significance involved. I believe it because "all" scientific evidence points in that direction. I struggled with the issue because I could not reconcile my understanding of the Genesis creation account with all the evidence. I decided to accept both and let it go at that. Then I ran into Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. My understanding of the creation account was based only upon what I had heard and rejected as a kid. Hugh Ross read the same creation account and interpreted it very differently. He said something to the effect that; it matched very well what he had learned as a student of science.

Cow Poke
01-21-2014, 02:01 PM
I always go back to the cross.

Cerebrum123
01-21-2014, 02:10 PM
I always go back to the cross.

The problem is the Good News doesn't make sense unless you know the bad news first.

Cow Poke
01-21-2014, 02:21 PM
The problem is the Good News doesn't make sense unless you know the bad news first.

But I don't need to know WHEN the bad news happened, just that it did. :smile:

Cerebrum123
01-21-2014, 02:23 PM
But I don't need to know WHEN the bad news happened, just that it did. :smile:

True, but much of what is being taught as fact would make it so that the bad news never happened, or wasn't nearly as bad as the NT authors depict it.

Cow Poke
01-21-2014, 02:27 PM
True, but much of what is being taught as fact would make it so that the bad news never happened, or wasn't nearly as bad as the NT authors depict it.

For example?

Cerebrum123
01-21-2014, 02:35 PM
For example?

For example it's being taught there were no Adam and Eve. It's being said by many that they were some kind of "myth". These are usually tied to evolution though.

Old earth views would have death before any possible date for Adam and Eve(the genealogies in Genesis can only be stretched so far). Both of these take away from what Christ taught, and what the other NT authors taught. If death is not the wages of sin, then what did Christ save us from? This is just a small sample of the kind of problems you encounter when trying to fit certain modern ideas into the Bible.

Cow Poke
01-21-2014, 02:39 PM
For example it's being taught there were no Adam and Eve. It's being said by many that they were some kind of "myth". These are usually tied to evolution though.

Old earth views would have death before any possible date for Adam and Eve(the genealogies in Genesis can only be stretched so far). Both of these take away from what Christ taught, and what the other NT authors taught. If death is not the wages of sin, then what did Christ save us from? This is just a small sample of the kind of problems you encounter when trying to fit certain modern ideas into the Bible.

Ah... gotcha.

Teallaura
01-21-2014, 04:01 PM
For a YEC position I recommend looking here. http://creation.com/
There is a lot to go through though, everything from what the Hebrew in Genesis means, to why the consensus interpretations of the evidence aren't accepted. The key articles page under the "Topics" list is probably a good start though.

I'll check it out. Thanks!

Teallaura
01-21-2014, 04:03 PM
I am not agnostic, I believe in an Old Earth, but I do not see any faith related issues of significance involved. I believe it because "all" scientific evidence points in that direction. I struggled with the issue because I could not reconcile my understanding of the Genesis creation account with all the evidence. I decided to accept both and let it go at that. Then I ran into Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. My understanding of the creation account was based only upon what I had heard and rejected as a kid. Hugh Ross read the same creation account and interpreted it very differently. He said something to the effect that; it matched very well what he had learned as a student of science.

I'll check that out as well. Thanks.

Teallaura
01-21-2014, 04:04 PM
I always go back to the cross.

I try to just stay there. :yes:

Jedidiah
01-21-2014, 04:15 PM
For example it's being taught there were no Adam and Eve. It's being said by many that they were some kind of "myth". These are usually tied to evolution though.

I do believe that Adam and Eve were the real first people.


Old earth views would have death before any possible date for Adam and Eve(the genealogies in Genesis can only be stretched so far). There was certainly no human death before the fall, Adam sinned so death came to all men. There is no problem with the genealogies.

Kbertsche
01-22-2014, 12:30 PM
Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

Thanks!
There is LOTS of scientific evidence for an old earth, and NO solid scientific evidence for a young earth. Here are just a few items:
1) the number of annual layers in lake varves puts the oldest back to about 45,000 years (and allows absolute calibration of radiocarbon dates to this age)
2) the thickness of coral reefs puts them back over 100,000 years.
3) the number of annual layers in ice puts them well over 100,000 years
4) the light from SN 1987A took 168,000 years to reach us. Further, its debris ring has been resolved by Hubble and the time lag for the explosion to illuminate this debris ring has been measured. This is all consistent with a 168,000 light-year distance and the present-day speed of light, evidence that the speed of light has not changed. Further yet, the decay of its light curve matched the expected radioactive decay rates, showing that the rates of radioactive decay have not changed in 168,000 years.
5) the ages of the line of volcanos along the Hawaiin Island and Emperor Seamount chain get progressively older the further along the chain one goes away from the hotspot under the island of Hawaii, up to about 80 million years. These ages are consistent with the rate of tectonic plate motion away from this hotspot as measured by GPS satellites.
6) all radioactive elements with half-lives less than about 500 million years are essentially absent from the earth's surface, UNLESS they are presently being made by cosmic rays or some other mechanism (e.g. Radiocarbon). But we DO see elements with half-lives longer than 500 million years, and we see lots more of the long-lived ones than the short-lived ones. This is consistent with a roughly 5 billion year old earth; after about 10 half lives, the isotopes are essentially gone (reduced in abundance by a factor of 1000). In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old.

37818
01-22-2014, 11:22 PM
I'm holding to an old universe/old earth/young earth view.

1) The earth is as old as the universe. 2) The earth was given form in 6 days just as Genesis account says. [Day one, the Sun is a star. Day 4, solar wind blows the debris past the earth where the Sun, Moon and star become visible as distinct lights in the sky.]

Typical measured ages, 13.8 billion for the universe. 4.5 billion for the earth in the solar system. 6,000+ from the 6 day account. Based in flood dating, over 5,000 years to the flood event alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

37818
01-22-2014, 11:28 PM
. . . In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old. Earth rock do not date that old, the 4.5 billion is base on other than earth rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks

Cerebrum123
01-23-2014, 06:18 AM
I do believe that Adam and Eve were the real first people.

Figured you would, you aren't a TE.


There was certainly no human death before the fall, Adam sinned so death came to all men. There is no problem with the genealogies.

There certainly is a problem. The genealogies can only be stretched so far. Humans existed far longer than 6,000-10,000 years ago. Do you, like Hugh Ross* accept the "soulless pre-Adamite hominids"?
Oh, and since the animals were originally said to be vegetarian, there wouldn't be any animal death for them before Adam either. However, we have evidence of carnivorous activity long before humans even show up.

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

The same phrasing is used to repeal the plant only diet for Noah.

Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Obviously the same diet was being proclaimed for both man and animals.

Then there's the part in Genesis where it says that there was no rain up until after God created man, but the fossil evidence supposedly tells a different story.

Genesis 2:6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

Is contradicted by this. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-imprints-of-rain-reveal-early-earth-atmosphere/

I prefer to trust what God has revealed about what He created.

*I remember you saying that you had a similar interpretation to him.

Jedidiah
01-23-2014, 02:10 PM
There certainly is a problem. The genealogies can only be stretched so far.

In my mind that is not a problem since the term father can refer to long past predecessors. Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.


Humans existed far longer than 6,000-10,000 years ago. Do you, like Hugh Ross* accept the "soulless pre-Adamite hominids"? I believe humans have been around since Adam - around 150,000 years ago or so. The whole question of soulless hominids is a non issue. We have on earth today soulless hominids. So what? I believe that the so-called pre humans were just the same sort of animals we have a few of left today in the hominid category, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

That whole soulless hominid thing was not Hugh Ross, but AIG trying to make him look bad. I do not think Christians should be attacking one another like that.


Oh, and since the animals were originally said to be vegetarian, there wouldn't be any animal death for them before Adam either. However, we have evidence of carnivorous activity long before humans even show up.

There is a lot of stuff that is subject to interpretation. I do not deny that there are questions that I do not have the answer to.

I do see things in a way similar to Ross, I think I did say that. I see the creation as a revelation of the creator. What we can learn about the creation is true and valuable. Can we interpret creation inaccurately? Sure, but we can also interpret scripture inaccurately. I have shared what I believe, but again I do not see the age of the earth as being spiritually significant.

I trust God, not my ability to understand everything. But I will still attempt to understand.

I am not willing to go through the effort of arguing about the age of the earth. It just is not worth the effort to me. I struggled with that for a long time and now put it behind me.

Cerebrum123
01-23-2014, 02:39 PM
In my mind that is not a problem since the term father can refer to long past predecessors. Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.

That doesn't help the case at all, as the genealogies in Genesis are designed by their nature to give a chronology. http://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies
We are given specific times for when the next person in the genealogy was born, this takes the possibility of gaps out of the picture. So does Jude.

Jude 1:14
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

Jude obviously didn't see any gaps in the Genesis genealogies.


I believe humans have been around since Adam - around 150,000 years ago or so. The whole question of soulless hominids is a non issue. We have on earth today soulless hominids. So what? I believe that the so-called pre humans were just the same sort of animals we have a few of left today in the hominid category, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

No it's not. If there are people out there who aren't descended of Adam, then they are potentially left out of the plan for salvation. This comes from Jesus being our "Kinsman Redeemer", which is a theme that is seen throughout the Bible. Besides homo sapiens shows up before 150,000 years ago. This would put human like creatures with signs of culture, art, and possibly religion as being some kind of animal.


That whole soulless hominid thing was not Hugh Ross, but AIG trying to make him look bad. I do not think Christians should be attacking one another like that.

It's on the Reasons to Believe website. So, no, it's not an attack. http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/hominids


There is a lot of stuff that is subject to interpretation. I do not deny that there are questions that I do not have the answer to.

It's the same phrase applied to both, why should we even think that it means something different? That's right, there's not.


I do see things in a way similar to Ross, I think I did say that. I see the creation as a revelation of the creator. What we can learn about the creation is true and valuable. Can we interpret creation inaccurately? Sure, but we can also interpret scripture inaccurately. I have shared what I believe, but again I do not see the age of the earth as being spiritually significant.

I understand that, just don't get close to the kenotic heresy like Ross did. William Lane Craig, an old earther talks about it here. http://www.ldolphin.org/craig/index.html


I trust God, not my ability to understand everything. But I will still attempt to understand.

Then why not trust His words in one of the clearest parts of the Bible?


I am not willing to go through the effort of arguing about the age of the earth. It just is not worth the effort to me. I struggled with that for a long time and now put it behind me.

I understand what you are saying. However, unlike you, I feel that this is an important issue. Someone's views of Genesis 1-11 is going to color how they see the rest of the Bible. Genesis is heavily used in the NT, especially Genesis 1-11. The very need for the Resurrection is spelled out in Genesis. I don't think believing TE, or OEC is a salvation issue, but I still think it important.

Kbertsche
01-23-2014, 03:32 PM
That doesn't help the case at all, as the genealogies in Genesis are designed by their nature to give a chronology. http://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies
We are given specific times for when the next person in the genealogy was born, this takes the possibility of gaps out of the picture.
As a YEC professor pointed out to me recently, if the genealogies in Gen 5, 10, and 11 were intended to present a chronology with no gaps, they would have included a total number of years for the whole period. But they don't. This professor, John Whitcomb, and most of the early YECs see room for modest gaps in the genealogies. Your interpretation is much more rigid and inflexible than John Whitcomb's, and is ultimately indefensible.

Cerebrum123
01-23-2014, 04:13 PM
As a YEC professor pointed out to me recently, if the genealogies in Gen 5, 10, and 11 were intended to present a chronology with no gaps, they would have included a total number of years for the whole period. But they don't. This professor, John Whitcomb, and most of the early YECs see room for modest gaps in the genealogies. Your interpretation is much more rigid and inflexible than John Whitcomb's, and is ultimately indefensible.

The evidence that a total would be included as a necessary component for a chronology is where?

Look they have been understood to present a chronology for some time. Even Augustine, who many OEC's site, saw them this way.

‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.’ Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, De Civitate Dei

Oh, look, even Origen took it that way.

‘After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phaethon, were more recent than any others.’ Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) 1.19, Ante-Nicene Fathers

Emphasis mine.

Even Josephus and many others did as well.

Did you read the link I gave? It goes into much more depth of why these genealogies were intended to convey a chronology. From what I understand John Whitcomb has done good work, but he is not the end all be all of YEC's.

Oh, and a "modest gap" surely wouldn't count over 100,000 years.

I also see that you missed my quote of Jude, which certainly seems to take the idea of gaps out as well. There are also many points at which a gap is explicitly ruled out, such as between Seth and Adam(there are many more if you would read the link), and the number of gaps necessary( approximately 250 just to get an extra 10,000 years) to even get a fraction of what would be necessary is staggering. They are again ruled out by the fact that X was Y number of years when he fathered Z. Meaning that X and Y were alive at the same time.

Given the evidence I have seen I have to say that I think John Whitcomb is completely wrong on this one.

Jedidiah
01-23-2014, 04:28 PM
No it's not. If there are people out there who aren't descended of Adam, then they are potentially left out of the plan for salvation. This comes from Jesus being our "Kinsman Redeemer", which is a theme that is seen throughout the Bible. Besides homo sapiens shows up before 150,000 years ago. This would put human like creatures with signs of culture, art, and possibly religion as being some kind of animal.

I have one comment. There are no people not descended from Adam. Adam was the first man.

We will just have to disagree on much of this.

Kbertsche
01-23-2014, 09:38 PM
The evidence that a total would be included as a necessary component for a chronology is where?
In general, we've got two choices in interpreting Scripture:
1) Approach the Scripture with pre-conceived conclusions as to what it does and does not say. E.g. insist that Gen 5, 10, 11 MUST (or must NOT) be presenting gapless chronologies.
2) Approach the Scripture honestly and openly, and allow Scripture itself to determine what it is trying to communicate to us.


From what I understand John Whitcomb has done good work, but he is not the end all be all of YEC's.
True. Whitcomb is an OT scholar. Most modern YECs are not, with no clue how to read or interpret the Hebrew Bible.


Here are some of the points that were recently made by Mark A. Snoeberger, a YEC professor at Detroit Baptist Seminary. His article is due to be published very soon in the Seminary's journal.

1) The author of Gen 5, 11 never says WHY he includes the numbers that he does. This is ultimately a matter of speculation.
2) "If the author’s purpose in using these numbers was to establish the age of the earth, then he
includes both too much and too little data." On one hand, details about additional children and the age at which the patriarch died are irrelevant to the age of the earth. On the other hand, the one thing that would have PROVEN this to be a chronology, and grand total, is omitted. (Note that totals are given for other biblical periods, e.g. the total time of slavery in Egypt, but that NO biblical author gives a total for the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11.)
3) Thus, the purpose of the numbers in Gen 5, 11 must be BROADER than, and maybe even DIFFERENT than, the establishment of the age of the earth.
4) The numbers in the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint are different; each would result in a different age for the earth.
5) Luke includes the name "Cainan" in his genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:47), which is completely absent from Gen 11 in ANY extant manuscript of the Masoretic Text. If we believe that both are inspired and inerrant, Moses must have omitted at least one generation from his list in Gen 11. Thus Gen 11 is NOT a gapless genealogy.
6) According to Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." If we insist that this is a strict, literal chronology, we would conclude that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. But we would be WRONG! Here's why:
a) according to Gen 12:4, Abram was 75 years old when he left Terah.
b) according to Acts 7:4, Abram left after Terah had already died.
c) according to Gen 11:32, Terah died when he was 205 years old.
d) hence, Abraham was 75 years old AFTER Terah was 205 years old, so he could not have been born until after Terah was 130 years old (NOT when Terah was 70 years old).
e) hence, here is how Snoeberger suggests that Gen 11:26 should be interpreted: “When Terah had lived 70 years, he began having children. The son critical to the biblical storyline was Abram. After he began having children, Terah lived 135 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Terah lived 205 years, and then he died.”
f) since the grammar here is essentialy the same as the other generations in Gen 5 and 11, this is how all of the generations here should be interpreted.

In summary, the claim that the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11 are intended to present a gapless chronology is false, contradicted by the biblical text itself.

Cerebrum123
01-24-2014, 02:10 AM
In general, we've got two choices in interpreting Scripture:
1) Approach the Scripture with pre-conceived conclusions as to what it does and does not say. E.g. insist that Gen 5, 10, 11 MUST (or must NOT) be presenting gapless chronologies.
2) Approach the Scripture honestly and openly, and allow Scripture itself to determine what it is trying to communicate to us.

I go with the second.


True. Whitcomb is an OT scholar. Most modern YECs are not, with no clue how to read or interpret the Hebrew Bible.

There are other YEC OT scholars. Again, he is not the only authority out there.


Here are some of the points that were recently made by Mark A. Snoeberger, a YEC professor at Detroit Baptist Seminary. His article is due to be published very soon in the Seminary's journal.

1) The author of Gen 5, 11 never says WHY he includes the numbers that he does. This is ultimately a matter of speculation.

There's far more than "speculation", if you had even bothered to read the article, one of the objections below shows that you didn't.


2) "If the author’s purpose in using these numbers was to establish the age of the earth, then he
includes both too much and too little data." On one hand, details about additional children and the age at which the patriarch died are irrelevant to the age of the earth. On the other hand, the one thing that would have PROVEN this to be a chronology, and grand total, is omitted. (Note that totals are given for other biblical periods, e.g. the total time of slavery in Egypt, but that NO biblical author gives a total for the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11.)

The only example you give is when a specific number was used to show God's commitment to fulfilling His promise to Abraham. The time period was specified beforehand, and verified afterwards in Exodus.

Genesis 15:13 Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

This doesn't really fit in with what you are trying to claim.

3) Thus, the purpose of the numbers in Gen 5, 11 must be BROADER than, and maybe even DIFFERENT than, the establishment of the age of the earth.

Broader, probably, but such a purpose is certainly not excluded, and if you had looked at the evidence definitely included.

4) The numbers in the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint are different; each would result in a different age for the earth.

Already answered in the link I gave. You didn't read it again. I'm rather sick of people ignoring evidence I give, so this will be my last response here.

5) Luke includes the name "Cainan" in his genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:47), which is completely absent from Gen 11 in ANY extant manuscript of the Masoretic Text. If we believe that both are inspired and inerrant, Moses must have omitted at least one generation from his list in Gen 11. Thus Gen 11 is NOT a gapless genealogy.

Already answered in the article I linked to.

6) According to Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." If we insist that this is a strict, literal chronology, we would conclude that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. But we would be WRONG! Here's why:
a) according to Gen 12:4, Abram was 75 years old when he left Terah.
b) according to Acts 7:4, Abram left after Terah had already died.
c) according to Gen 11:32, Terah died when he was 205 years old.
d) hence, Abraham was 75 years old AFTER Terah was 205 years old, so he could not have been born until after Terah was 130 years old (NOT when Terah was 70 years old).
e) hence, here is how Snoeberger suggests that Gen 11:26 should be interpreted: “When Terah had lived 70 years, he began having children. The son critical to the biblical storyline was Abram. After he began having children, Terah lived 135 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Terah lived 205 years, and then he died.”
f) since the grammar here is essentialy the same as the other generations in Gen 5 and 11, this is how all of the generations here should be interpreted.

Ah, finally an objection that wouldn't have really been addressed so far, but it has been answered before, so I don't know why Snoeberger didn't know about it. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oldabe.php

In summary, children were often listed in matters of importance. Example would be Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham being listed second, was actually the youngest.

Genesis 9:24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,

This would still not touch the chronology in any major way.


In summary, the claim that the genealogies of Gen 5, 10, 11 are intended to present a gapless chronology is false, contradicted by the biblical text itself.

Um, no. The more obvious conclusion is that Snoeberger hasn't looked at all the evidence.

Like I said above, I'm done here. I'm sick of people ignoring the evidence I give on this topic. Happens almost every time I try to discuss this topic, and it's sickening. Sorry if that sounds overly harsh, but I am worn out. I have nothing personal against you, but when this kind of thing happens repeatedly it gets very frustrating very fast.

Oh, and in my previous post it should say "X and Z were alive at the same time", I didn't notice the error until after I had gone to bed and woken up.

Kbertsche
01-24-2014, 12:58 PM
There's far more than "speculation", if you had even bothered to read the article, one of the objections below shows that you didn't.
It is generally considered bad form to "argue by web link". Please make your points and arguments in your own words if you want others to take them seriously and respond to them.





4) The numbers in the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint are different; each would result in a different age for the earth.

Already answered in the link I gave. You didn't read it again. I'm rather sick of people ignoring evidence I give, so this will be my last response here.
Again, you tried to answer this by web link, not in your own words. But your link to Sarfati does not really "answer" this. It does not engage the obvious point: if the ancient translators of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint changed the numbers, they apparently did NOT view these numbers as establishing a gapless chronology back to creation, but saw some othe purpose for them.





5) Luke includes the name "Cainan" in his genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:47), which is completely absent from Gen 11 in ANY extant manuscript of the Masoretic Text. If we believe that both are inspired and inerrant, Moses must have omitted at least one generation from his list in Gen 11. Thus Gen 11 is NOT a gapless genealogy.

Already answered in the article I linked to.
Yes, Sarfati argues against this, but only by presenting partial evidence and questionable claims. Sarfati is NOT a textual scholar.
1) where is his evidence that early copies of the Septuagint do NOT include the name "Cainan" in Gen 11?? Can he point us to an extant manuscript that we can examine? I think he is only speculating and inferring this from the fact that Josephus omitted it. I don't believe we have any solid textual evidence that the earliest copies of Septuagint omitted "Cainan".
2) the name "Cainan" WAS included in the Book of Jubilees, an extra biblical text dating before 100 BC. So it was NOT first introduced by a later copyist of Luke, as Sarfati claims.
3) essentially all textual scholars consider the name to have been in Luke's original autographs in 3:36. Only two early manuscripts omit it, one of which is highly suspect for other reasons. ALL other early manuscripts include the name "Cainan" (or "Kenam"). Snoeberger quotes a textual scholar who says that this issue is essentially a text-critical "slam-dunk". (BTW, Snoeberger referenced Sarfati's claim on this, but apparently did not find it compelling.)





6) According to Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." If we insist that this is a strict, literal chronology, we would conclude that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. But we would be WRONG! Here's why:
a) according to Gen 12:4, Abram was 75 years old when he left Terah.
b) according to Acts 7:4, Abram left after Terah had already died.
c) according to Gen 11:32, Terah died when he was 205 years old.
d) hence, Abraham was 75 years old AFTER Terah was 205 years old, so he could not have been born until after Terah was 130 years old (NOT when Terah was 70 years old).
e) hence, here is how Snoeberger suggests that Gen 11:26 should be interpreted: “When Terah had lived 70 years, he began having children. The son critical to the biblical storyline was Abram. After he began having children, Terah lived 135 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Terah lived 205 years, and then he died.”
f) since the grammar here is essentialy the same as the other generations in Gen 5 and 11, this is how all of the generations here should be interpreted.

Ah, finally an objection that wouldn't have really been addressed so far, but it has been answered before, so I don't know why Snoeberger didn't know about it. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oldabe.php


You've missed the point entirely! Your link agrees with Snoeberger! In Gen 11:26, "When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, ...", it does NOT necessarily mean that Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old. Rather, it means that Terah began having children when he was 70 years old, and that Abram was the most prominent of these children. By extension, the formula "When X had lived N years, he became the father of Y" should be read as, "When X had lived N years he began having children, the most prominent of whom is Y". (And we would expect that roughly half of these children are females, almost none of whom are listed in the genealogies). Hence, these numbers do not provide an accurate gapless chronology, and should not be used to try to calculate an accurate date for creation. (Note: I suspect that nearly all who have tried to use the genealogies in this way have overlooked this issue of Terah and Abraham, and are off by at least 60 years from this issue alone.)

37818
01-24-2014, 01:36 PM
As a YEC professor pointed out to me recently, if the genealogies in Gen 5, 10, and 11 were intended to present a chronology with no gaps, they would have included a total number of years for the whole period. But they don't. This professor, John Whitcomb, and most of the early YECs see room for modest gaps in the genealogies. Your interpretation is much more rigid and inflexible than John Whitcomb's, and is ultimately indefensible.According to the Holy Spirit there were gaps, here is the one given:
". . . which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, . . . " -- Luke 3:35, 36.

Jedidiah
01-24-2014, 09:12 PM
. . . son of . . . can skip many generations. Many generations.

tharkun
05-27-2014, 01:55 PM
There is LOTS of scientific evidence for an old earth, and NO solid scientific evidence for a young earth. Here are just a few items:

1) the number of annual layers in lake varves puts the oldest back to about 45,000 years (and allows absolute calibration of radiocarbon dates to this age)

This ASSUMES that the varves are actually annual and that the earth has reached equilibrium in regards to the carbon isotope ratios (when it has been known for decades that the earth is not at equilibrium).


2) the thickness of coral reefs puts them back over 100,000 years.

This ASSUMES that coral reef build-up times are constant and subject to increases or decreases due to local conditions.


3) the number of annual layers in ice puts them well over 100,000 years

This ASSUMES that the ice layers are actually annual, when it is KNOWN that it only represents temperature fluctuations and not necessarily seasonal fluctuations. You can get multiple layers built up in a single snow fall as has been demonstrated. See also, the lost squadron.



4) the light from SN 1987A took 168,000 years to reach us. Further, its debris ring has been resolved by Hubble and the time lag for the explosion to illuminate this debris ring has been measured. This is all consistent with a 168,000 light-year distance and the present-day speed of light, evidence that the speed of light has not changed. Further yet, the decay of its light curve matched the expected radioactive decay rates, showing that the rates of radioactive decay have not changed in 168,000 years.

This ASSUMES that measured distances are accurate and that the speed of light or decay rates are constant, something also that has been shown to be incorrect.



5) the ages of the line of volcanos along the Hawaiin Island and Emperor Seamount chain get progressively older the further along the chain one goes away from the hotspot under the island of Hawaii, up to about 80 million years. These ages are consistent with the rate of tectonic plate motion away from this hotspot as measured by GPS satellites.

This ASSUMES that radiometric dating is accurate. On examples where we know the dates, radiometric dating fails; so why should we believe that it works on samples that we don't know the date?



6) all radioactive elements with half-lives less than about 500 million years are essentially absent from the earth's surface, UNLESS they are presently being made by cosmic rays or some other mechanism (e.g. Radiocarbon). But we DO see elements with half-lives longer than 500 million years, and we see lots more of the long-lived ones than the short-lived ones. This is consistent with a roughly 5 billion year old earth; after about 10 half lives, the isotopes are essentially gone (reduced in abundance by a factor of 1000). In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old.

This ASSUMES (again) that decay rates are constant and have always been constant. Something known to be incorrect.

tharkun

klaus54
06-04-2014, 04:25 PM
This ASSUMES that the varves are actually annual and that the earth has reached equilibrium in regards to the carbon isotope ratios (when it has been known for decades that the earth is not at equilibrium).



This ASSUMES that coral reef build-up times are constant and subject to increases or decreases due to local conditions.



This ASSUMES that the ice layers are actually annual, when it is KNOWN that it only represents temperature fluctuations and not necessarily seasonal fluctuations. You can get multiple layers built up in a single snow fall as has been demonstrated. See also, the lost squadron.




This ASSUMES that measured distances are accurate and that the speed of light or decay rates are constant, something also that has been shown to be incorrect.




This ASSUMES that radiometric dating is accurate. On examples where we know the dates, radiometric dating fails; so why should we believe that it works on samples that we don't know the date?




This ASSUMES (again) that decay rates are constant and have always been constant. Something known to be incorrect.

tharkun

But since all those phenomena cross-correlate either 1) each method is fairly accurate or 2) there's some confounding variable that causes ALL of them to vary in the same way.

#1 is a LOT more likely and make most sense ergo stands as the best explanation unless you can suggest a variable for choice #2.

K54

P.S. OTOH, you've posited many unrelated causes, when the simplest explanation is that the variable controlling them all is time. You've also included PRATTs, such as change in the speed of light in vacuo which is bizarre and has no purpose other to fit presupposition of a young Earth.

The downed bomber is also a PRATT.

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 05:12 PM
As a YEC professor pointed out to me recently, if the genealogies in Gen 5, 10, and 11 were intended to present a chronology with no gaps, they would have included a total number of years for the whole period. But they don't. This professor, John Whitcomb, and most of the early YECs see room for modest gaps in the genealogies. Your interpretation is much more rigid and inflexible than John Whitcomb's, and is ultimately indefensible.Not ultimately. But I am not a OT inerrantist.

Vertetuesi
07-26-2014, 05:53 AM
There is LOTS of scientific evidence for an old earth, and NO solid scientific evidence for a young earth. Here are just a few items:
1) the number of annual layers in lake varves puts the oldest back to about 45,000 years (and allows absolute calibration of radiocarbon dates to this age)
2) the thickness of coral reefs puts them back over 100,000 years.
3) the number of annual layers in ice puts them well over 100,000 years
4) the light from SN 1987A took 168,000 years to reach us. Further, its debris ring has been resolved by Hubble and the time lag for the explosion to illuminate this debris ring has been measured. This is all consistent with a 168,000 light-year distance and the present-day speed of light, evidence that the speed of light has not changed. Further yet, the decay of its light curve matched the expected radioactive decay rates, showing that the rates of radioactive decay have not changed in 168,000 years.
5) the ages of the line of volcanos along the Hawaiin Island and Emperor Seamount chain get progressively older the further along the chain one goes away from the hotspot under the island of Hawaii, up to about 80 million years. These ages are consistent with the rate of tectonic plate motion away from this hotspot as measured by GPS satellites.
6) all radioactive elements with half-lives less than about 500 million years are essentially absent from the earth's surface, UNLESS they are presently being made by cosmic rays or some other mechanism (e.g. Radiocarbon). But we DO see elements with half-lives longer than 500 million years, and we see lots more of the long-lived ones than the short-lived ones. This is consistent with a roughly 5 billion year old earth; after about 10 half lives, the isotopes are essentially gone (reduced in abundance by a factor of 1000). In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old.

Kirk, you've listed your "six of the best" and no doubt could add to them. However it would take some doing to match the 101 evidences listed at www.creation.com/age-of-the-earth, and that isn't an exhaustive list either. If you haven't read through that compendium (laden with links all over the place) it's worth doing, not least for the massive comments thread as long as the article itself, with as you can imagine plenty of objections, and replies from CMI's scientists.

The trouble with continuing to claim robotically that there's "no evidence" that the earth is in fact much younger than 5by old, is that you basically give YECs a free run to spread such evidence unopposed until you're finally provoked to try to oppose it. Wouldn't it be more sensible to engage it properly from the outset?

Notable in that list of evidence is the section from astronomy, which prompts me to ask Kirk or anybody if they can name one single feature of the (extra-terrestrial) solar system that actually looks 5by old?

Kbertsche
07-26-2014, 12:08 PM
Kirk, you've listed your "six of the best" and no doubt could add to them. However it would take some doing to match the 101 evidences listed at www.creation.com/age-of-the-earth, and that isn't an exhaustive list either. If you haven't read through that compendium (laden with links all over the place) it's worth doing, not least for the massive comments thread as long as the article itself, with as you can imagine plenty of objections, and replies from CMI's scientists.
These 101 (and more) evidences are called "PRATT"s: "points refuted a thousand times". I and others have contributed to answering some of them. You can search for answers at many websites, such as www.talkorigins.org, www.reasons.org, www.asa3.org, etc.


The trouble with continuing to claim robotically that there's "no evidence" that the earth is in fact much younger than 5by old, is that you basically give YECs a free run to spread such evidence unopposed until you're finally provoked to try to oppose it. Wouldn't it be more sensible to engage it properly from the outset?
Please don't misquote me. Notice that I said "there's NO solid scientific evidence for a young earth". I did not say that there is "no evidence", and certainly not that there is "no CLAIMED evidence" for a young earth. I believe that all of these YEC claims have been answered. If you find one that you believe has no good answer, please present it as a new topic in the "natural science" area of TWeb, and you'll probably get lots of answers.


Notable in that list of evidence is the section from astronomy, which prompts me to ask Kirk or anybody if they can name one single feature of the (extra-terrestrial) solar system that actually looks 5by old?
The Hubble "ultra deep field" image is easily found on the web. This is more than 10 billion years old (as measured by red shift), and these early galaxies are much less orderly looking than older, more recent galaxies. The images of cosmic background radiation from COBE and WMAP show us an even earlier picture of the mass distribution of the universe before the galaxies formed, and we see a similar "clumpiness" to the eventual distribution of galaxies.

37818
09-20-2015, 09:19 AM
A OUC (Old Universe Creation) [Genesis 1:1] and a OEC [Genesis 1:1] followed by a YEC [Genesis 1:2-Genesis 3:22]. I am fine with that. As our science improves our understanding will improve.

Our current understand places the early age of the earth (OEC) at 4.5 billion years. Now the yet to be learned is how much younger our formed earth might be given to yet be learned neutrino flux from our nearest star our Sun really effects radiological isotope half life.

Kbertsche
09-23-2015, 06:20 PM
A OUC (Old Universe Creation) [Genesis 1:1] and a OEC [Genesis 1:1] followed by a YEC [Genesis 1:2-Genesis 3:22]. I am fine with that. As our science improves our understanding will improve.

Our current understand places the early age of the earth (OEC) at 4.5 billion years. Now the yet to be learned is how much younger our formed earth might be given to yet be learned neutrino flux from our nearest star our Sun really effects radiological isotope half life.
Neutrino flux from the sun is irrelevant. Neutrino flux near a nuclear reactor is thousands of times higher, and it does not have any noticeable effects on half-life.

37818
09-26-2015, 08:56 AM
Neutrino flux from the sun is irrelevant. Neutrino flux near a nuclear reactor is thousands of times higher, and it does not have any noticeable effects on half-life.

Scientists have measured half-life variance here on earth in conjunction with the Sun's rotation.
http://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.html
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html

Kbertsche
09-26-2015, 08:33 PM
Scientists have measured half-life variance here on earth in conjunction with the Sun's rotation.
http://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.html
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html
Yes, these claims have been going on for a few years. The claimed effect is very small. The folks making the claims initially were not doing any experiments themselves; they were re-analyzing experiments done by others. (I think this is still the case.) This is always dangerous.

Look a bit deeper and you'll see that other scientists have evidence that these claims are erroneous.

The easy way to test these claims would be to do the same experiment next to a nuclear reactor, because the neutrino flux is tremendously larger.

I don't believe there is anything to these claims. The principals behind the claims have been involved in other goofy, bogus claims in the past.

Teallaura
09-27-2015, 07:58 AM
Thanks again, everyone. :smile:

37818
10-07-2015, 10:26 AM
. . . Look a bit deeper and you'll see that other scientists have evidence that these claims are erroneous. . . .
Are you just making this up? Provide the links.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

mikewhitney
10-07-2015, 02:28 PM
Thanks again, everyone. :smile:

I think you have found the obvious ... everyone agrees on theories, facts and doctrines among atheists, YECs, OECs and scientists.

Kbertsche
10-07-2015, 03:27 PM
Are you just making this up? Provide the links.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
Have you even tried to find any opposing links yourself? (It should be easy!) If so, what sort of searches have you tried? If not, are you really interested in pursuing truth on this issue?

37818
10-09-2015, 01:56 PM
Have you even tried to find any opposing links yourself? (It should be easy!) If so, what sort of searches have you tried? If not, are you really interested in pursuing truth on this issue?
So how many of these imaginary links have you found?

Kbertsche
10-09-2015, 02:30 PM
So how many of these imaginary links have you found?
Based on your responses to me, you do not seem open to truth on this topic. If you change your stance, let me know, and I'll try to help you learn how to search for rebuttals to Fischbach and Sturrock.

(In a short search the other day, I found 9 scientific articles rebutting their claims. I'm sure there are more.)

37818
10-10-2015, 05:49 AM
Based on your responses to me, you do not seem open to truth on this topic. If you change your stance, let me know, and I'll try to help you learn how to search for rebuttals to Fischbach and Sturrock.

(In a short search the other day, I found 9 scientific articles rebutting their claims. I'm sure there are more.)

?

Just provided one of those links.


Here is an article on the scientific dating of the earth. http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 22

And another on the Sun and its apparent effect isotope half life. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100725223630data_trunc_sys.shtml

Kbertsche
10-10-2015, 09:17 AM
?

Just provided one of those links.


Here is an article on the scientific dating of the earth. http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 22

And another on the Sun and its apparent effect isotope half life. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100725223630data_trunc_sys.shtml
First, realize that the links that you provided earlier were not links to scientific papers, but to popular-level press releases. If you want to see the real claims, it's best to work from the scientific papers.

Second, realize that the main guy involved in these claims is Ephraim Fischbach. He has been involved in some crazy claims in the past, so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Sturrock joined forces with him later. Sturrock is regarded as somewhat of a kook by his colleagues. Here is a popular-level discussion of problems with Fischbach and his claims: https://www.analogsf.com/0905/altview_05.shtml
(This author suspects that Fischbach's error comes from timing variations, but I think it's more likely that his error comes from slight temperature, pressure, and humidity dependencies of the TLDs that were used to measure the radiation. I posted a number of links and my own thoughts on these claims on the old pre-crash TWeb, but these are no longer available.)

In order to find rebuttals to the claims of Fischbach and Sturrock, simply do a search on their names along with words such as "rebuttal", "contradict", etc. You can use Google search directly or can use Google scholar. Most of the papers that I found are on ArXiv; once you have found one paper on ArXiv you can click the link on papers that reference it and can find other rebuttals in this way.

Here is the first paper that I found: Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance (http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265) by Eric B. Norman, Edgardo Browne, Howard A. Shugart, Tenzing H. Joshi, Richard B. Firestone
We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron-capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth-Sun distance. We find no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments.
It may be that these guys were the original authors of the data that Fischbach analyzed to make his claims? (I haven't verified this.)

And here is a later paper by Norman which points out that Fischbach's own claims are self-contradictory: Additional experimental evidence against a solar influence on nuclear decay rates (http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4357) by Eric B. Norman
Conflicting results from two experiments studying the decay of Cl-36 point to instrumental artifacts rather than a solar influence being responsible for variations in measured counting rates.

I've also found papers by Belotti et al, Hardy et al, Kossert & Naehler, and Meier & Weiler, all rebutting the claims of Fischbach & Sturrock. These guys have not admitted defeat; they have themselves tried to rebut the rebuttals.

37818
10-10-2015, 12:18 PM
First, realize that the links that you provided earlier were not links to scientific papers, but to popular-level press releases. If you want to see the real claims, it's best to work from the scientific papers.

Second, realize that the main guy involved in these claims is Ephraim Fischbach. He has been involved in some crazy claims in the past, so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Sturrock joined forces with him later. Sturrock is regarded as somewhat of a kook by his colleagues. Here is a popular-level discussion of problems with Fischbach and his claims: https://www.analogsf.com/0905/altview_05.shtml
(This author suspects that Fischbach's error comes from timing variations, but I think it's more likely that his error comes from slight temperature, pressure, and humidity dependencies of the TLDs that were used to measure the radiation. I posted a number of links and my own thoughts on these claims on the old pre-crash TWeb, but these are no longer available.)

In order to find rebuttals to the claims of Fischbach and Sturrock, simply do a search on their names along with words such as "rebuttal", "contradict", etc. You can use Google search directly or can use Google scholar. Most of the papers that I found are on ArXiv; once you have found one paper on ArXiv you can click the link on papers that reference it and can find other rebuttals in this way.

Here is the first paper that I found: Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance (http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265) by Eric B. Norman, Edgardo Browne, Howard A. Shugart, Tenzing H. Joshi, Richard B. Firestone
We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron-capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth-Sun distance. We find no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments.
It may be that these guys were the original authors of the data that Fischbach analyzed to make his claims? (I haven't verified this.)

And here is a later paper by Norman which points out that Fischbach's own claims are self-contradictory: Additional experimental evidence against a solar influence on nuclear decay rates (http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4357) by Eric B. Norman
Conflicting results from two experiments studying the decay of Cl-36 point to instrumental artifacts rather than a solar influence being responsible for variations in measured counting rates.

I've also found papers by Belotti et al, Hardy et al, Kossert & Naehler, and Meier & Weiler, all rebutting the claims of Fischbach & Sturrock. These guys have not admitted defeat; they have themselves tried to rebut the rebuttals.That is interesting. thank you. But all the articles I cite had to do with a 33 day cycle and with solar flares. Any rebuttals on that?

Kbertsche
10-10-2015, 12:35 PM
That is interesting. thank you. But all the articles I cite had to do with a 33 day cycle and with solar flares. Any rebuttals on that?
Take a look at one of the papers by Belotti et al. (I have given you enough guidance that you should be able to search and find this yourself, if you are really interested in pursuing truth!). Their focus was on Fischbach's claim of approximately annual variations, but they also ruled out all variations in the range of 6 hours to about 400 days.

Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant (http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662), by E. Bellotti, C. Broggini, G. Di Carlo, M. Laubenstein, R. Menegazzo, Physics Letters B, Volume 710, Issue 1, p. 114-117. 03/2012


Conclusion
The half-life of a 137Cs source has been estimated to be 10942±30 days, in agreement with its recommended value. Moreover, from our measurement we can exclude the presence of time variations in the source activity, superimposed to the expected exponential decay, larger than 9.6·10−5 at 95% C.L. for oscillation periods in the range 6 hours-1 year. In particular, we exclude an oscillation amplitude larger than 8.5·10−5 at 95% C.L. correlated to the variation of the Sun-Earth distance, in clear contradiction with previous experimental results and their interpretation as indication of a novel field (or particle) from the Sun. The data taking with the improved experimental set-up is going to continue for at least another 6 months.

37818
10-10-2015, 02:03 PM
Take a look at one of the papers by Belotti et al. (I have given you enough guidance that you should be able to search and find this yourself, if you are really interested in pursuing truth!). Their focus was on Fischbach's claim of approximately annual variations, but they also ruled out all variations in the range of 6 hours to about 400 days.

Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant (http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662), by E. Bellotti, C. Broggini, G. Di Carlo, M. Laubenstein, R. Menegazzo, Physics Letters B, Volume 710, Issue 1, p. 114-117. 03/2012


Conclusion
The half-life of a 137Cs source has been estimated to be 10942±30 days, in agreement with its recommended value. Moreover, from our measurement we can exclude the presence of time variations in the source activity, superimposed to the expected exponential decay, larger than 9.6·10−5 at 95% C.L. for oscillation periods in the range 6 hours-1 year. In particular, we exclude an oscillation amplitude larger than 8.5·10−5 at 95% C.L. correlated to the variation of the Sun-Earth distance, in clear contradiction with previous experimental results and their interpretation as indication of a novel field (or particle) from the Sun. The data taking with the improved experimental set-up is going to continue for at least another 6 months.
Yes that was in Feb 2012.
But in Jan 2013, they were back making claims,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3754
Power-spectrum analyses of the decay rates of certain nuclides reveal (at very high confidence levels) an annual oscillation and periodicities that may be attributed to solar rotation and to solar r-mode oscillations. A comparison of spectrograms (time-frequency displays) formed from decay data and from solar neutrino data reveals a common periodicity with frequency 12.5 year-1, which is indicative of the solar radiative zone. We propose that the neutrino flux is modulated by the solar magnetic field (via Resonant Spin Flavor Precession) in that region, and we estimate the force and the torque that could be exerted on a nuclide by the solar neutrino flux.

Kbertsche
10-10-2015, 03:19 PM
Yes that was in Feb 2012.
But in Jan 2013, they were back making claims,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3754
Power-spectrum analyses of the decay rates of certain nuclides reveal (at very high confidence levels) an annual oscillation and periodicities that may be attributed to solar rotation and to solar r-mode oscillations. A comparison of spectrograms (time-frequency displays) formed from decay data and from solar neutrino data reveals a common periodicity with frequency 12.5 year-1, which is indicative of the solar radiative zone. We propose that the neutrino flux is modulated by the solar magnetic field (via Resonant Spin Flavor Precession) in that region, and we estimate the force and the torque that could be exerted on a nuclide by the solar neutrino flux.
Yes. As I said earlier, Fischbach and Sturrock aren't giving up. They keep making counter-claims, which keep being rebutted. (I doubt that Pons and Fleischmann have given up yet, either.)

Science is based on the strength of data and evidence not on the basis of personalities. To evaluate claims, you must be able to sort through the data yourself.

37818
10-10-2015, 04:52 PM
Kbertsche,

I found this more recent article where it presents the case that supposed half life solar caused fluctuations are well refuted. Thanks.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/52/3/S51/pdf

Mor
11-15-2015, 01:01 AM
I think that Adam and Eve are not men, but two peoples, and they are more than 2 billion years old. And they are not from the same planet. (Adam is not from Earth, and Eve is not from from Earth. Maybe the Earth wasn't even inhabitant when Adam began to live.) About the 6 days of creation, the time is not one dimensional but at least two. So, the world can be an endless strip, but having finite breadth. We perceive only one dimension of time. Our Universe as a whole, with its end and start of days, is like a photograph of a more complicated world. As I understand it, once, it was a Universe with no men, neither in the beginning, nor in the end. And the men never existed in that Universe. But after some action, the Universe changed, and we appeared, and we live in that Universe. It can be, that after some action, the Universe changes again, and, again, we never existed.