Question for the YECs

Please, cite an example of what you refer to? What 'matter" has been created in this way that you speak of? I am not sure we are using these terms in the same manner.

It is known that a tiny element of matter (atom) can hold a great amount of energy. Its unlocking that energy that releases the energy which is already there, not creating it. Is that what you speak of?


.

__________________

.

Several of the supercolliders that are used to smash particles together to deconstruct them have also been used to 'crash' massless particles together to make other particles to observe how they are formed, and such.

Again, this isn't my field (if you're wondering what is, it's chemical engineering, not particle physics), so it's not something I'm an expert in, but I do know it's been done. Cooling systems on supercolliders were occasionally given to us as example thermodynamics problems to show us just how but some of the numbers we'd run into could be, so that the whole 'this number is huge, it can't be right' factor wouldn't come up.

As far as high energy goes... I did some checking and apparently temperatures to successfully 'make' electrons from massless particles can get to be about, oh, 10^10 kelvins. Which is 10^10 -273.15 Celcius.


Metherion

__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.

If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.

--Lewis Carroll, all three.

I believe you have created a new definition. Please, stay with established definitions. We just wandered off into matter being eternal, rather than address the original question (which was abandoned rather quickly). Yes, the universe consists of matter. But the universe consists of things made from matter. The question was about the universe being eternal, not simply matter.




Jesus made water into wine, instantly. Yet? Wine must be aged first to produce a great vintage as this wine was. Jesus created something new that appeared to be old, but was not. Therefore, God can create an effect surrounding something he created and you could never know its true age. Maybe he does not want us to know the true age of something at times for reasons he has willed to be in his plan.


The reason certain scientist insist that this earth is billions of years old is because they must give the theory of evolution the room it needs to appear to be viable. They can not authoritatively prove the age of this planet to be that old. Their theory demands that it be so. So, its dogmatically "assumed."



.

__________________

.

This is flat out wrong. The reason the age of the planet is said to be old is because of the radioactive dating methods. Not carbon dating, this is more uranium and potassium/argon and a few others. It has NOTHING to do with giving 'evolution the time it needs'.

Metherion

__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.

If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.

--Lewis Carroll, all three.

I thought this was about apologetics?

__________________

How can they verify that this method is accurate? There may be variables that they have no means to see which are involved.


Billions of years passed, and uranium can keep its charge? Can it ever lose its charge? Then, how powerful was its charge when first created?

Is all uranium we find the same age? What if in the distant past there were some sort of unexpected type of oscillation effect that we could not observe that took place? it could never be factored in because it would require being there from the beginning and having thirty thousand years of recorded observation to see its effect take place? That from thirty thousand years on, what appears to us to be measured a thousand years, may have only been a few years from that point.. and then another oscillation once again occured at a one hundred thousand year mark, giving yet another decay rate? How can we be sure that what we assume is consistent must take place over great stretches of time? What if uranium turned sour, so to speak? We were never there to observe its consistency.

Uranium as it was originally created new may have contained some unknowable elements that acted on its decay rate, and once depleted, there were changes in how fast or slow the decay rate took place. The use of such means to determine age of an object is based upon what is knowable for today's conditions - based upon an assumed measure of consistency we can observe - may not be the accurate indicator we seek. Man has not been observing creation long enough to turn their assumptions about certain things into absolutes. We can only assume a decay rate remains consistent at all times. But, water keeps getting cooler ...and then it freezes. Before man actually observed water freezing he could only assume it would simply keep getting colder and colder as a liquid. We can only see back in time so far. We have no idea how the nature of things may have changed over time.

We assume the sun will remain burning for so many years based upon the premise that all things factored in will remain a constant. We can not be certain that if the sun varied a slight amount under a certain temperature level that an unexpected reaction might happen. One that would cause a much more rapid cooling.


What if? What if? What if?


.

__________________

.

Apologetics has limits.

__________________

.

The fact that all of the dating methods, every last one that can measure back that far, have given consistent methods with the other methods no matter which one it is?

Okay, this is where I go on a rant. I'll summarize it in the last line if you don't want to read the whole thing.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BLOODY INCOMPETENT. The field is decades old. There has been research and whatnot on this for decades. All the problems any layman to that field and hundreds FAR more complex than you would even know could exist have already been considered, analyzed, accounted for, and dealt with.

Do you REALLY, REALLY, TRULY THINK that a few questions about 'how can you tell' on an internet forum INVALIDATE THE MAIN PRINCIPLES AND NEARLY THE ENTIRE FIELD? That the people who do this are SO INCOMPETENT THEY HAVEN'T CONSIDERED QUESTIONS THAT EVEN PEOPLE NOT IN THE FIELD WOULD ASK?

Before you asked these, have you taken even the slightest look at how these might happen? And if you're going to say 'well, anything could change that could throw it all off', how can you even get out of bed in the morning? What if some small reaction happened with the Earth's magnetic field that causes your legs to snap as the iron in your blood gets pulled down way too fast? Why can all sorts of things that even the experts in the fields would have no idea about happen just because it contradicts your views, yet you trust everything that happens in the day to day as if it WON"T dramatically change JUST LIKE YOU SAY THOSE THINGS YOU DON"T AGREE WITH MUST HAVE?

Scientists are not politicians. Science doesn't have agendas. We don't have hidden meetings where we discuss what spin we're going to put on things. We don't all know exactly how we're going to fix data. WE DON"T. That's why we repeat things, and document how we did them, and what algorithms we applied to the data, so that anyone can repeat it and make sure it's right with the right equipment. Do you honestly, truly think that all the scientists in the radioactive dating area have spun every piece of data and contacted every amateur with the equipment who's tried to do it and had them all fudge the data in the exact same way? How do you justify this?

STOP TREATING US LIKE MORONS. STOP TREATING US LIKE CONSPIRATORS! Stop using the excuse that everything can change, or must have in the past, or whatever, without us knowing and then keep on taking everything in the world done for granted with no fear it ever change or stop just as you insist it must have just to support your worldview!

I'm sorry to rant like this, but I'm starting to get INCREDIBLY sick of being accused by implication of being an incompetent moron who doesn't actually know anything and works with people who are similarly incompetent morons? That I'm some sort of conspirator who works with other conspirators to deceive the public at large into some anti-God agenda? What? What exactly do you think of us?

I mean, if you were a banker, working of profit/return margins on mortgages, what if someone who doesn't know what credit ratings have to do with interest comes in and says that because he doesn't understand it, you must be swindling him?

What if you're a courtroom stenographer and someone says all your recordings must be invalid because it's POSSIBLE someone swapped the 'e' and 'r' on the ink blocks without you knowing?

What if you're a lawyer and someone who doesn't understand how leading the witness works (like me, I haven't a clue what it means) suddenly decides you must have been and all your cases need to be overturned?
In any of those cases, people who haven't a clue what's actually going on, have no idea what the checks and how things work are, come in without knowing, and are trying to overturn your work on minor things that you've had training and experience to realize. But do it to science and suddenly it's FINE! WHAT THE CRAP?!

Okay, the summary: If you have questions, look at what the experts in its field say. Not experts in other fields, not religious people who claim all sorts of things. Go to the actual scientists and see if they can answer your questions. If you're not in the field and have thought of them, odds are the people who have done this for, I don't know, DECADES have thought of them, answered them, moved on, and done the same to questions you never knew existed. Don't just go 'oh, what if this, what if that, it can't possibly be right, and science is wrong.' It serves no purpose but to make you look like hypocrits and tick us off.

I'm sorry for the rant, but... argh, it's really really annoying to see all this stuff, all this work, all the education hand-waved away just because someone on the internet without an education in it doesn't see how it could work.

Metherion

__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.

If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.

--Lewis Carroll, all three.

"I don't understand a word they say, but since they reach a conclusion I disagree with, they are obviously wrong."

We're physicists. We gotta get used to this. Sociologically speaking it's only going to get worse.

__________________

sorry, I missed the established definition. What was it?

And yet the wine he made will continue to age after he made it. It appeared to be old, and got older; thus, it can age.

You said that if the universe had no beginning, nothing could age. That is what I've been addressing. What are you suddenly talking about?

How dare they dogmatically assume that evidence showing a rock formation taking a million years to form would actually take a million years to form, without taking into account that God could have made it instantly so! I demand text books in school say:
But now we're getting off topic.