Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

How Old is This Thing?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
      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?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Vertetuesi View Post
        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.

        Originally posted by Vertetuesi View Post
        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.

        Originally posted by Vertetuesi View Post
        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.
        Last edited by Kbertsche; 07-26-2014, 10:23 PM.
        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            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.
            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
              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-radioac...-rotation.html
              http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...enkinsDec.html
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Scientists have measured half-life variance here on earth in conjunction with the Sun's rotation.
                http://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioac...-rotation.html
                http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...enkinsDec.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.
                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #38
                  Thanks again, everyone.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                    . . . 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/a...un-082310.html
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      Thanks again, everyone.
                      I think you have found the obvious ... everyone agrees on theories, facts and doctrines among atheists, YECs, OECs and scientists.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        Are you just making this up? Provide the links.
                        http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/a...un-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?
                        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                          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?
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            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.)
                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              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/201...runc_sys.shtml
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                ?

                                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/201...runc_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 by Eric B. Norman, Edgardo Browne, Howard A. Shugart, Tenzing H. Joshi, Richard B. Firestone
                                Source: Norman et al

                                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.

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                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 by Eric B. Norman
                                Source: 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.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                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.
                                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X