Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
I gotta chime in on this:
Questions outside the scope of science.
- Thread starter OrangeChipper
- Start date
OrangeChipper
1,000+ Posts
GT.
Thanks for the link! Its funny that I was reading this very essay when you posted the link for it.
I certainly agree with him on his last section. When the Bible says, the 4 corners of the earth... I know its not necessarily saying the earth is flat. I know there are multiple acceptable interpretations for Genesis.
Just because a believer disagrees, does not mean I find his reasons compelling. Surely you know that I could find dozens of quotes of evolutionists that have poked holes in radiometric dating methods.
I just fundamentally disagree with him. I respect him and his opinions much like that of Hugh Ross. I just still am not convinced. Too many assumptions. His hourglass analogy only works with several assumptions.
1. Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?
2. Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass?
3. Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?
It sure SEEMS that way for the first 3 questions, but its not. Look we need to HAVE a rock that we know is xx years old. Then let's test it.
Thanks for the link! Its funny that I was reading this very essay when you posted the link for it.
Just because a believer disagrees, does not mean I find his reasons compelling. Surely you know that I could find dozens of quotes of evolutionists that have poked holes in radiometric dating methods.
I just fundamentally disagree with him. I respect him and his opinions much like that of Hugh Ross. I just still am not convinced. Too many assumptions. His hourglass analogy only works with several assumptions.
1. Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?
2. Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass?
3. Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?
It sure SEEMS that way for the first 3 questions, but its not. Look we need to HAVE a rock that we know is xx years old. Then let's test it.
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
"Fields" as a concept within the standard model is lacking a physical construction. There is no physical mechanism for storing or transmitting energy through a field. The standard requires that fields be something magical, or in some cases replaced with the equally fictional messenger photons. I feel that fields must be something physically real rather than pure magic.
Described is the word I was looking for rather than solved with regard to the photon.
To be precise, I should clarify that there is a form of drag induced by the zero point field, but it is the same as inertia, so our equations ignore or otherwise work around that force elementt by design.
Described is the word I was looking for rather than solved with regard to the photon.
To be precise, I should clarify that there is a form of drag induced by the zero point field, but it is the same as inertia, so our equations ignore or otherwise work around that force elementt by design.
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
OrangeChipper
1,000+ Posts
JC,
Thanks again for the post (love your videos, btw)
Here are some of the assumptions I'm referring to.
1. Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
Problem: How do we know there was none of the daughter element at the start? In other words, what if the rock had natural Argon in its makeup before the potassium start decaying to form argon?
#2. Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
Problem : Well, that's assuming nothing changed over time. The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem.7 Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.
I have seen a good rebuttal to that point... that basically freezing/heating/wind have not altered the samples they are working on. IE... natural occurrences that we experience today would not change things. However, there we go again with another assumption.
Assumption #3 - They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.
Problem: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years?
The Link
Thanks again for the post (love your videos, btw)
Here are some of the assumptions I'm referring to.
1. Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
Problem: How do we know there was none of the daughter element at the start? In other words, what if the rock had natural Argon in its makeup before the potassium start decaying to form argon?
#2. Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
Problem : Well, that's assuming nothing changed over time. The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem.7 Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.
I have seen a good rebuttal to that point... that basically freezing/heating/wind have not altered the samples they are working on. IE... natural occurrences that we experience today would not change things. However, there we go again with another assumption.
Assumption #3 - They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.
Problem: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years?
The Link
OrangeChipper
1,000+ Posts
JC.
Maybe I should've been more clear like the link was. Referring to the GENERAL theory of evolution, which Darwin also called the ORIGIN of species. So Abiogenesis is critical to the overall theory.
Maybe I should've been more clear like the link was. Referring to the GENERAL theory of evolution, which Darwin also called the ORIGIN of species. So Abiogenesis is critical to the overall theory.
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
Orange Chipper,
Most of you arguments deal with criticisms of the physical science which has lead to scientific acceptance of an old (~4.5 billion) age for the Earth. Do you have any evidence to support a young Earth?
Please give positive evidence, not just your doubts about the evidence supporting an old Earth.
Most of you arguments deal with criticisms of the physical science which has lead to scientific acceptance of an old (~4.5 billion) age for the Earth. Do you have any evidence to support a young Earth?
Please give positive evidence, not just your doubts about the evidence supporting an old Earth.
OrangeChipper
1,000+ Posts
Netslave gets it. Thats the thrust of me bringing up the issue. On one hand, the believers get throttled for their 'blind faith'. However, when looked at critically, we see that Science doesn't hold all the answers either. Even in areas where Science is well within its scope, the answers are often unclear. Some say global warming is a fact. Some beg to differ and point to natural cycles. Some say we need to diet in a manner that avoids Carbs. Some say load up on them. Some epidemiological studies show that autism is linked to vaccines. Some disagree.
Can't we see that Science isn't the 'god' that some claim it to be?? It is NOT the final answer. Even when we DO have the data, it conflicts and sometimes fails. And on answers like Evolution (change over millions of years) and age of the earth... we are really in the dark.
Answering some points. You guys are right that we've been studying the constants for over 100 years. So far, there are no discrepancies. 100 percent of our studies have found no change in our constants. I concede this fact. But 100 years is an infinitesimal range of the data. (especially if we're talking billions of years)
The leading claim for the extinction of dinosaurs says that there was a meteor that crashed on the earth. The Link
This would have changed the atmosphere and showered all kinds of different rocks and dead animal life everywhere. This alone would screw with uniformitarian assumptions. Then you have ice ages. Then you have the primordial soup which scientists admit YOU CANNOT RECREATE TODAY. So if you have circumstances and atmospheres and EVENTS that we cannot recreate and therefore cannot study. How can we be clear that what we can study is accurate? Especially when what we CAN study isn't always clear-cut anyway?
Science/scientists have an innate need to find answers. And lets admit that if constants weren't constant, we'd never find some answers. For example, if gravity weren't constant we'd never know the terminal velocity of something.
Mudrat's conclusions show that. You have 5 different dates on same rock. If that's me... I say... something is wrong with my assumptions, I have to start over. But he says... NOPE assumptions are right so the data is wrong... lets make the data all match because we KNOW our assumptions are right. I'm sorry, but that assumes what you are trying to prove from the start.
As far as what I believe about the age of the earth?? I'm agnostic over the matter. Too many lines of evidence point to more than millions of years. Sure, a couple here or there are rabidly presumptuous. But to have them all wrong is unlikely. However, some young earth claims do have some credibility.
Can't we see that Science isn't the 'god' that some claim it to be?? It is NOT the final answer. Even when we DO have the data, it conflicts and sometimes fails. And on answers like Evolution (change over millions of years) and age of the earth... we are really in the dark.
Answering some points. You guys are right that we've been studying the constants for over 100 years. So far, there are no discrepancies. 100 percent of our studies have found no change in our constants. I concede this fact. But 100 years is an infinitesimal range of the data. (especially if we're talking billions of years)
The leading claim for the extinction of dinosaurs says that there was a meteor that crashed on the earth. The Link
This would have changed the atmosphere and showered all kinds of different rocks and dead animal life everywhere. This alone would screw with uniformitarian assumptions. Then you have ice ages. Then you have the primordial soup which scientists admit YOU CANNOT RECREATE TODAY. So if you have circumstances and atmospheres and EVENTS that we cannot recreate and therefore cannot study. How can we be clear that what we can study is accurate? Especially when what we CAN study isn't always clear-cut anyway?
Science/scientists have an innate need to find answers. And lets admit that if constants weren't constant, we'd never find some answers. For example, if gravity weren't constant we'd never know the terminal velocity of something.
Mudrat's conclusions show that. You have 5 different dates on same rock. If that's me... I say... something is wrong with my assumptions, I have to start over. But he says... NOPE assumptions are right so the data is wrong... lets make the data all match because we KNOW our assumptions are right. I'm sorry, but that assumes what you are trying to prove from the start.
As far as what I believe about the age of the earth?? I'm agnostic over the matter. Too many lines of evidence point to more than millions of years. Sure, a couple here or there are rabidly presumptuous. But to have them all wrong is unlikely. However, some young earth claims do have some credibility.
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
I was trying to explain how scientists work...if you have a measurement with no error bar then it is absolutely worthless. If you have 5 measurements of the same thing that all disagree, outside of their error bars, then something is definately ****** up. Everybody knows that assumptions suck, and your measurement needs to take all of those into account when you calculate the error.
But some things, like radioactive decay, are not assumptions at all. Those are proven measured facts.
But some things, like radioactive decay, are not assumptions at all. Those are proven measured facts.
OrangeChipper
1,000+ Posts
Red,
I don't find too many compelling either. Or maybe better put. Not MORE convincing than the old-earth counterparts. The most compelling old-earth argument I've seen is the speed-of-light argument. We pretty much know the speed of light and have determined that some stars are over a million light years away. The only way that could be false is if the speed of light isn't constant. There have been some evidences of that, but by and large the consequences of an unconstant speed of light might make life unlivable.
Back to some other evidences of a young earth.
"We know that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying since the time it was first measured in 1835. Given the most plausible model of magnetism being generated by circulating electric currents that are decaying within the earth, and projecting the numbers backwards, 10,000 years ago the earth would have a field as strong as a magnetic star which utilizes thermonuclear processes to maintain a field of that strength. (See general reference 16.)
Critics of this theory insist on the existence of an electric generator ("dynamo") inside the earth, without theoretical or empirical evidence to justify such a thing. (Paleomagnetic anomalies are presented as evidence, but are inferior to the global statistically averaged data used to justify the young-earth model. Said paleomagnetic artifacts are dated using old-earth metrics and assumptions.) Again, circular reasoning is employed: "The earth is old, therefore the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying. Because the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying, there must be a dynamo. Because there is a dynamo, the magnetism in the earth has not been monotonically decaying. Because the earth has not been monotonically decaying, the young-earth model is invalid."
Or
Each time a comet swings around close to the sun, the sun causes part of the comet to disintegrate. It is the tail that we see as a result. Astronomers have observed that the life of a short-term comet is on the order of 1,500 to 10,000 years. There are an abundance of short-term comets. Why aren't they all gone by now? [13]
Critics of the young-earth model hypothesize what they call an Oort cloud, which supposedly generates comets, even though they have never observed such a thing, nor can theoretically show that it must exist. Circular reasoning is employed: "The universe is old, therefore something is producing the short-term comets. Because something is producing the short-term comets, therefore the young-earth metric is invalid."
The Link
I have seen decent rebuttals to the above, but the solution to the comet dilemma. (an oort cloud) Is sheer conjecture and not science.
I don't find too many compelling either. Or maybe better put. Not MORE convincing than the old-earth counterparts. The most compelling old-earth argument I've seen is the speed-of-light argument. We pretty much know the speed of light and have determined that some stars are over a million light years away. The only way that could be false is if the speed of light isn't constant. There have been some evidences of that, but by and large the consequences of an unconstant speed of light might make life unlivable.
Back to some other evidences of a young earth.
"We know that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying since the time it was first measured in 1835. Given the most plausible model of magnetism being generated by circulating electric currents that are decaying within the earth, and projecting the numbers backwards, 10,000 years ago the earth would have a field as strong as a magnetic star which utilizes thermonuclear processes to maintain a field of that strength. (See general reference 16.)
Critics of this theory insist on the existence of an electric generator ("dynamo") inside the earth, without theoretical or empirical evidence to justify such a thing. (Paleomagnetic anomalies are presented as evidence, but are inferior to the global statistically averaged data used to justify the young-earth model. Said paleomagnetic artifacts are dated using old-earth metrics and assumptions.) Again, circular reasoning is employed: "The earth is old, therefore the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying. Because the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying, there must be a dynamo. Because there is a dynamo, the magnetism in the earth has not been monotonically decaying. Because the earth has not been monotonically decaying, the young-earth model is invalid."
Or
Each time a comet swings around close to the sun, the sun causes part of the comet to disintegrate. It is the tail that we see as a result. Astronomers have observed that the life of a short-term comet is on the order of 1,500 to 10,000 years. There are an abundance of short-term comets. Why aren't they all gone by now? [13]
Critics of the young-earth model hypothesize what they call an Oort cloud, which supposedly generates comets, even though they have never observed such a thing, nor can theoretically show that it must exist. Circular reasoning is employed: "The universe is old, therefore something is producing the short-term comets. Because something is producing the short-term comets, therefore the young-earth metric is invalid."
The Link
I have seen decent rebuttals to the above, but the solution to the comet dilemma. (an oort cloud) Is sheer conjecture and not science.
Mia
You remember right. The single photon interference is the classic aspect of the wave-particle duality, with a particular Bohr et al interpretation. The mulitiverse explanation of the phenomena is in some respects simpler, that is, is straightforward and free of paradox. Except, it comes with a multiverse multiplication every Planck time, and that's hard to get a grip on.
Read David Deutch for excellent, that is, clear multiverse interpretation of interference. He taught for a while at UT but is now at Oxford, I think.
You remember right. The single photon interference is the classic aspect of the wave-particle duality, with a particular Bohr et al interpretation. The mulitiverse explanation of the phenomena is in some respects simpler, that is, is straightforward and free of paradox. Except, it comes with a multiverse multiplication every Planck time, and that's hard to get a grip on.
Read David Deutch for excellent, that is, clear multiverse interpretation of interference. He taught for a while at UT but is now at Oxford, I think.
so i am not a young earth guy...i actually accept that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old and that the universe is 15 to 17 billion years old. even though i dont' believe in macroevolution, i do believe in an old earth.....
having said that,i always wondered what the 'age' of the universe would be from the perspective of a photon of light moving out from the big bang to the edge of the universe. since time is relative, wouldn't this be far shorter than to us watching the photon?
i could be way off....i am a philosophy major and theology guy, but i have always been curious...
having said that,i always wondered what the 'age' of the universe would be from the perspective of a photon of light moving out from the big bang to the edge of the universe. since time is relative, wouldn't this be far shorter than to us watching the photon?
i could be way off....i am a philosophy major and theology guy, but i have always been curious...
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
