Young Earth Hypothesis

[NailsII]

I think it is more reasonable to assume the earth is young.

Hi engineer,

Within a few hundred years of 6,000 years old.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

To measure time you need a-->b. a for radiometric dating has only been around since 1950. It is a faith based belief that because xyz is decaying at abc it has always been doing that, which if one believes Noahs flood, it hasnt. Theres no law that says things HAVE to start at the top of the decay chain too, its BLIND FAITH there was no daughter element present in sample to begin with. To the person who has FAITH in 'billions and billions' there is EMPIRICAL evidence AGAINST it.

Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates

I predict an apriori dogmatic rejection but we will see.

Prediction confirmed.

I predict that if I post something completely incorrect I will be put right by someone with greater knowledge in that subject - not much of a prediction really, is it?
Especially when to cling to the idea of a young earth you have to ignore - completely ignore - an awful lot of well-estbalished science, yet seize on one piece of science (which to be clear claims more than it can justify) and then claim it supports your dogma.

Seriously.

Just have a word with yourselves.

 

[RickG]

Prediction confirmed.

If you think you have demonstrated you have any knowledge about radiometric dating by posting that link, it is in fact a demonstration of no knowledge of radiometric dating.

As for your prediction, there is nothing dogmatic about science.

 

[Gracchus]

Apropos: "Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves." --- Richard Feynmann

Scientists test their assumptions and reasoning against the real world. They love the truth. the know they make errors and seek correction. They do not make claims for what they can observe or deduce by reasoning from observation.

Religious people test their assumptions against old book, written by primitive people. Their "reasoning" is overridden by "faith". They claim innerrancy for their book and sometimes for themselves. They make fantastic. ridiculous and unreasonable claims to try to convince themselves. They are, in fact, idolaters, worshipping gods of their own construction, made of lies, fables, and their own yearnings. Their gods are fashioned in their own image, vain, jealous, and vindictive.

"And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'” -- Genesis 3:22 NIV

But in truth, religious people believe whatever is in their own selfish interests, and whatever lets them think very well of themselves, and the harder that is, the stronger their "faith".

 

[Stoneghost]

I don't know how old the earth or the universe are. IMO trying to stick a number on it is to say one understands time - a rather brazen claim.

So you don't celebrate your birthdays then? As saying how old you are would involve the brazen claim of understanding time?

 

[miamited]

hi nails,

Your postscript contains a quote from Mark Twain: "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." - Mark Twain

Ironically that's exactly how I feel about the Scriptures. The parts that I do understand - that I'm a sinner in need of a Savior, is what pricks me and thus drives me to want to know the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[RickG]

@jinx25:

Actually, assuming that radioactive decay is always occurring at the same rate is a logical assumption, unless you have counter-evidence. And we have no counter-evidence. So we can assume it has always decayed at the same rate.

Actually, it's not an assumption. Supernovae explosions produce a large number of radioisotopes. Supernovae 1987A which is at a distance of 169,000 light years, gave scientists the opportunity to measure decay rates of many isotopes. Those measured decay rates which occurred 169,000 years ago are the same as those measured on earth today.

[astro-ph/9706025] Nucleosynthesis in Type Ia Supernovae
[astro-ph/9706024] Nucleosynthesis in Type II Supernovae
[astro-ph/9802077] Nucleosynthesis Basics and Applications to Supernovae
[astro-ph/9912131] Constraints on stellar yields and SNe from gamma-ray line observations
[astro-ph/9712212] Discovery of a Supernova Explosion at Half the Age of the Universe and its Cosmological Implications

 

[juvenissun]

More reasonable based on what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Overall comparison with other models.

 

[juvenissun]

Not brazen at all. The age of the earth is determined by radiometrically dating the oldest known rocks on earth as well as meteorites and moon rocks. Taking all into consideration that determination is express as 4.54 billion years +/- 1%. So it is not an exact age but one that is statistically significant.

Yes.

But if that is all you know, then it might be enough to earn you a living, but it is not enough for you to know truth.

 

[Jamin4422]

There are a few young earthers here.

It does not matter because YEC people have nothing to say about anything that happened MORE then 6,000 years ago. They just start at that point in time and pretend like nothing existed before that point in time.

 

[juvenissun]

Apropos: "Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves." --- Richard Feynmann

Science is what we do to keep the lies within ourselves.

 

[juvenissun]

It does not matter because YEC people have nothing to say about anything that happened MORE then 6,000 years ago. They just start at that point in time and pretend like nothing existed before that point in time.

I have much much more than what you can say.

 

[juvenissun]

So you don't celebrate your birthdays then? As saying how old you are would involve the brazen claim of understanding time?

Reference, reference. It all depend on what you refer to.
The normal meaning of our birthdays is referring to the sun.
And there are many many other ways to count it.

 

[Jamin4422]

The age of the earth is determined by radiometrically dating the oldest known rocks on earth

Decay rate does not offer evidence of anything. If you go faster then the speed of light then decay rate will increase also. The universe could be 6,000 years old and still have a decay rate of 4.5 billion years.

 

[Elendur]

I have much much more than what you can say.

That's a very arrogant thing to say (/write).

 

[KhaosTheory]

YECers, you can't have it both ways... Either completely deny science in order to furthur your anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, bring-us-back-to-the-dark-ages agenda; or attempt to use science to prove your hypotheses.... But you can't do both at the same time! Sheesh you are confusing me!

First you say that science perfectly fits with your story and we have all these facts to support it...

Then you turn around and say we can't trust human knowledge or anything we find in the physical world because it's all controlled by Satan!

Well, which is it???

 

[freezerman2000]

Reference, reference. It all depend on what you refer to.
The normal meaning of our birthdays is referring to the sun.
And there are many many other ways to count it.

What other ways are there,pray tell? The lunar phases?

 

[The Engineer]

@KhaosTheory: Well said.

Decay rate does not offer evidence of anything. If you go faster then the speed of light then decay rate will increase also. The universe could be 6,000 years old and still have a decay rate of 4.5 billion years.

It's not possible to go faster than the speed of light. So no, decay rate can't just spontaneously increase.

 

[freezerman2000]

Decay rate does not offer evidence of anything. If you go faster then the speed of light then decay rate will increase also. The universe could be 6,000 years old and still have a decay rate of 4.5 billion years.

The problem with your little theory is,Nothing can go FTL.

 

[Jamin4422]

It's not possible to go faster than the speed of light. So no, decay rate can't just spontaneously increase.

Of course it is possible to go faster then the speed of light and that has been proven. The problem is the huge amount of energy needed. There is a huge amount of energy required to go that fast. That is why the decay rate jumps the way it does. That is why we have to have worm holes to get places in the universe. It may look good on TV to travel at warp speed, but in the real world it really can not be done.

It does not matter if you can or can not tamper with the decay rate because we have a lot of other things we use to establish the date of the universe. Decay rate just happens to roughly coincide with other known factors about the age of the universe. Like expansion rate for example. Or the receding rate of the moon. All of these give us an idea of the age of our planet and the age of our universe. Also we have geologic time established by the layers in the earth. Each layer with it's own story to tell. Or the layers in the ice from the ice core samples. Or even the rings in the trees if you accept that each ring equals a year. The redwoods go back thousands of years and there are some pine trees they believe go back 5 or 6 thousand years.

 

[freezerman2000]

Of course it is possible to go faster then the speed of light and that has been proven. The problem is the huge amount of energy needed. There is a huge amount of energy required to go that fast. That is why the decay rate jumps the way it does. That is why we have to have worm holes to get places in the universe. It may look good on TV to travel at warp speed, but in the real world it really can not be done.

It does not matter if you can or can not tamper with the decay rate because we have a lot of other things we use to establish the date of the universe. Decay rate just happens to roughly coincide with other known factors about the age of the universe. Like expansion rate for example. Or the receding rate of the moon. All of these give us an idea of the age of our planet and the age of our universe. Also we have geologic time established by the layers in the earth. Each layer with it's own story to tell. Or the layers in the ice from the ice core samples. Or even the rings in the trees if you accept that each ring equals a year. The redwoods go back thousands of years and there are some pine trees they believe go back 5 or 6 thousand years.

I need to see proof of your claim about traveling FTL...