In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Hammster]

I boldly disagree.

How does that differ from run of the mill disagreements?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is it observable or falsifiable? If not, it is a theory, and thus in my opinion an assumption.

Theories and observations are separate things. You don't observe theories. You test theories with observations. As it concerns radiometric dating, you can test it with observations and it is falsifiable. For example, K decays into Ar and U decays into Pb. They do this through completely different mechanisms and completely independent of each other. They also have very different decay rates. We can measure the ratios of these elements in rocks.

Given their known decay rates, we can predict that if these rocks really are millions of years old then both the K/Ar ratio and U/Pb ratio should give the same age using the observed decay rates. Guess what? They do. Completely different decay processes both give the same date. That is the falsifiable test.

Yes, conclusions Based on unproven data.

How are the ratios of isotopes in rocks not proven? We can directly measure them.

It also assumes it is accurate.

As already shown, no such assumption is made. If different isotope systems produced different ages, then we would conclude that radiometric dating doesn't work.

These are scenarios that are not relative. The processes are based on assumptions.

Waving the word "assumption" about without any justification is not a valid argument. You actually have to show that they are assumptions, and unfounded ones.

If those processes were used on Adam the day he was made what would they show? Obviously we don't know so it's not observable with the original man for the original world and it's not falsifiable.

So Adam would be created with scars from injuries that he never suffered? Is that what you are saying? God would fake a history?

 

[Loudmouth]

Probably not. Is there act scriptural evidence that will change your mind?

Those are scriptural claims, not evidence.

 

[RickG]

This is creation and evolution is it not?

Yes, you are correct. However, this thread did begin in on the physical and life sciences side of the CFs science forums. Nevertheless, discussing science is the intention of the science forums.

 

[StanJ]

Theories and observations are separate things. You don't observe theories. You test theories with observations. As it concerns radiometric dating, you can test it with observations and it is falsifiable.

That's right, but if you can't observe this theory or falsify it then it's not a theory is it, according to Scientific standards anyway? How do you observe a rock that is four and a half billion years old?

Given their known decay rates, we can predict that if these rocks really are millions of years old then both the K/Ar ratio and U/Pb ratio should give the same age using the observed decay rates. Guess what? They do. Completely different decay processes both give the same date. That is the falsifiable test.

The Decay rates are only known from what we can observe. We can't observe how the rates continue or if they are consistent beyond what we can't observe. Saying so would be an assumption. How exactly is arriving at the same date falsifiable?

How are the ratios of isotopes in rocks not proven? We can directly measure them.

You can measure them now but how do you confirm the date they're from even if they're from 10 years ago if you don't observe them being created? How do you know there's no kind of change in the isotope rates based on other factors? Are you not just assuming that the people that came up with these decay rates got it right? Has it EVER been falsified?

As already shown, no such assumption is made. If different isotope systems produced different ages, then we would conclude that radiometric dating doesn't work.

You just said above that K/Ar ratio and U/Pb ratio give the same age?

Waving the word "assumption" about without any justification is not a valid argument. You actually have to show that they are assumptions, and unfounded ones.

Waving the word Siri around as if it was a fact is also another valid argument you actually have to show that the theory is observable and falsifiable and so far you haven't. Has anyone?

So Adam would be created with scars from injuries that he never suffered? Is that what you are saying? God would fake a history?

No you said that, what I said was you don't understand what's required, you're not a Creator, so how do you know? How did you observe?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's right, but if you can't observe this theory . . .

You don't observe theories. That's not how the scientific method works.

How do you observe a rock that is four and a half billion years old?

The observation of isotopes in the rock is what is used to determine its age.

In a murder trial, does a jury have to directly observe the suspect murdering the victim in order to find him guilty? Or can evidence created during the murder and observed afterwards be used to determine what happened?

If the suspect's DNA, fingerprints, fibers, shoe prints, and tons of other evidence are found at the crime scene, are we just "assuming" he is guilty without any justification for the simple reason that we can't travel back in time and watch him commit the murder?

The Decay rates are only known from what we can observe. We can observe how the rates continue or if they are consistent be gone but we can't observe. Saying so would be an assumption.

If decay rates were different in the past, then that would leave evidence that we can observe in the present. Most notably, we can observe decay rates in distant supernovae that are hundreds of thousands of light years away, and those decay rates are the same them as they are now. We can also compare the ratios of different isotope systems as described before. If decay rates were different in the past, then the methods using modern decay rates would not produce the same ages.

There are also naturally occurring nuclear reactors, like those in Oklo. If decay rates were different in the past, then the byproducts of these naturally occurring nuclear reactors would be different than what present day decay rates would produce. They aren't different. They are exactly what they should be if decay rate were the same in the past. You can read more here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE410.html

No one is assuming that decay rates were the same in the past. Scientists have done the work to find evidence that they were the same in the past. Like I said, you need to actually show that they are assumptions instead of waving the word about.

 

[RickG]

These are scenarios that are not relative. The processes are based on assumptions.

In the physical sciences, when one states that something is assumed, it is not just a thought, idea or guess. Scientific assumptions are based falsifiable physical evidence that has been tested, retested, verified and re-verified.

If those processes were used on Adam the day he was made what would they show? Obviously we don't know so it's not observable with the original man for the original world and it's not falsifiable.

Not of Adam specifically, because we do not have his remains. However, we do have the remains of humans his age and older from which those physical aspects can be tested and quantified. Ken Ham likes to ask, "were you there"? The answer of course is no. However, God was and the evidence left behind is his for us to examine through the physics and chemistry he provides.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, you are correct. However, this thread did begin in on the physical and life sciences side of the CFs science forums. Nevertheless, discussing science is the intention of the science forums.

There's nothing in the SoP that says this is a science forum.

 

[RickG]

The Decay rates are only known from what we can observe. We can observe how the rates continue or if they are consistent be gone but we can't observe. Saying so would be an assumption.

And those decay rates are consistent going back in time, especially when cross-referencing different isotopes and methods. If decay rates had changed they would not be consistent with the geologic column. Furthermore, there are numerous non-radiometric methods of dating that completely agree with those of radiometric. And going a step further, we can look into the past by observing supernovae millions of light years distant. There are numerous papers published in the scientific literature doing just this. What they observe is a number of isotopes being emitted by gamma rays from those supernovae. In doing so those rates of decay are measured. That decay they are observing occurred when the star went supernovae millions of years ago and those decay rates are the same as we observe today.

 

[RickG]

There's nothing in the SoP that says this is a science forum.

From forum rules and guidelines

No General Apologetics Topics

Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with defending or proving the truths of the Christian faith and doctrines. Discussion and debate on subjects related to general apologetics are not allowed in the Discussion and Debate category forums. Christians who would like to discuss apologetics may do so in the Christian Apologetics forum.
​

The topic of the thread is about apparent age of the earth.

 

[StanJ]

You don't observe theories. That's not how the scientific method works.

Well I don't and maybe you don't either but science tells us that they have to be observable and falsifiable if they're called theories. Are you not aware of this?

The observation of isotopes in the rock is what is used to determine its age.

How exactly did they observe a four and a half billion year old rock?

In a murder trial, does a jury have to directly observe the suspect murdering the victim in order to find him guilty? Or can evidence created during the murder and observed afterwards be used to determine what happened?

Murder trials are not theories. Bad analogy.

If the suspect's DNA, fingerprints, fibers, shoe prints, and tons of other evidence are found at the crime scene, are we just "assuming" he is guilty without any justification for the simple reason that we can't travel back in time and watch him commit the murder?

Again these are not serious but they are observable. The murder didn't happen four and a half billion years ago.

If decay rates were different in the past, then that would leave evidence that we can observe in the present. Most notably, we can observe decay rates in distant supernovae that are hundreds of thousands of light years away, and those decay rates are the same them as they are now. We can also compare the ratios of different isotope systems as described before. If decay rates were different in the past, then the methods using modern decay rates would not produce the same ages.

Now you're comparing apples to oranges, sorry that doesn't work either.

There are also naturally occurring nuclear reactors, like those in Oklo. If decay rates were different in the past, then the byproducts of these naturally occurring nuclear reactors would be different than what present day decay rates would produce. They aren't different. They are exactly what they should be if decay rate were the same in the past. You can read more here:

Oh you mean the ones that were discovered at at nuclear fuel processing plant, that was ascertained based on the twenty-year-old prediction? Yeah that sounds pretty scientific.

Talk Origins is a biased site and if you can't really articulate your own point of view there's no use referring me to a site.

No one is assuming that decay rates were the same in the past. Scientists have done the work to find evidence that they were the same in the past. Like I said, you need to actually show that they are assumptions instead of waving the word about.

And like I said how do they know that they were the same in the past if they couldn't observe what the past was? Again assumptions as far as I'm concerned. You seem rather inculcated into these processes?

 

[Hammster]

From forum rules and guidelines

No General Apologetics Topics

Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with defending or proving the truths of the Christian faith and doctrines. Discussion and debate on subjects related to general apologetics are not allowed in the Discussion and Debate category forums. Christians who would like to discuss apologetics may do so in the Christian Apologetics forum.
​

The topic of the thread is about apparent age of the earth.

Right, and whether it makes God deceptive.

 

[StanJ]

From forum rules and guidelines

No General Apologetics Topics

Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with defending or proving the truths of the Christian faith and doctrines.

Discussion and debate on subjects related to general apologetics are not allowed in the Discussion and Debate category forums. Christians who would like to discuss apologetics may do so in the Christian Apologetics forum.
​

The topic of the thread is about apparent age of the earth.

Yes, under the subheading creation and evolution. How exactly do we discuss creation and evolution if you don't use apologetics and if the rule applies then why is this thread here under that subtopic?

 

[StanJ]

And those decay rates are consistent going back in time, especially when cross-referencing different isotopes and methods. If decay rates had changed they would not be consistent with the geologic column. Furthermore, there are numerous non-radiometric methods of dating that completely agree with those of radiometric. And going a step further, we can look into the past by observing supernovae millions of light years distant. There are numerous papers published in the scientific literature doing just this. What they observe is a number of isotopes being emitted by gamma rays from those supernovae. In doing so those rates of decay are measured. That decay they are observing occurred when the star went supernovae millions of years ago and those decay rates are the same as we observe today.

How far back in time where they observed? Well as far as absorbing sunlight or supernova from millions of light-years distance you're assuming that God created the universe and we waited for the light to get here. I believe that when God created the universe just as it says in Genesis 2 he created light that was already here in an instant.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well I don't and maybe you don't either but science tells us that they have to be observable and falsifiable if they're called theories.

Science tells us no such thing. Science says that theories and observations are different things. Theories are not observations. As Gould put it:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Theory and Fact"

How exactly did they observe a four and a half billion year old rock?

The same way you observe any other rock.

Murder trials are not theories. Bad analogy.

They are theories in ever sense. The prosecution presents their theory, and the observations that support it. It is a perfect analogy.

Again these are not serious but they are observable. The murder didn't happen four and a half billion years ago.

What difference does it make? The unobserved past is the unobserved past. If we can use evidence in the present to reconstruct what happened at a crime scene in the past, why can't we do the same for geology?

Now you're comparing apples to oranges, sorry that doesn't work either.

It is apples to apples. You just don't like it because it refutes your argument.

We can DIRECTLY observe isotopes decaying in the past when we look at distant objects. We can see that those decay rates were the same in the past. We can see that all of the physical constants that define decay rates were the same in the past.

Oh you mean the ones that were discovered at at nuclear fuel processing plant, that was ascertained based on the twenty-year-old prediction? Yeah that sounds pretty scientific.

No, I am talking about naturally occurring nuclear reactors.

Talk Origins is a biased site and if you can't really articulate your own point of view there's no use referring me to a site.

I did articulate my own view point, and talk origins isn't biased.

I'm sorry, but you can't just hand wave all of this away.

And like I said how do they know that they were the same in the past if they couldn't observe what the past was?

When you look at distant stars, that's exactly what you are doing.

 

[RickG]

How exactly did they observe a four and a half billion year old rock?

By dating zircons through the Uranium/Lead series. Are you familiar with it? Here's a few describing the process.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024493795000224
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/12/16/petrology.egp082.short
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/21/4/339.short
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/32/9/817.short

 

[Loudmouth]

How far back in time where they observed? Well as far as absorbing sunlight or supernova from millions of light-years distance you're assuming that God created the universe and we waited for the light to get here. I believe that when God created the universe just as it says in Genesis 2 he created light that was already here in an instant.

No more so than we assume God doesn't plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes.

If your only recourse is to claim that God created all of this fake evidence, then you don't have much of an argument.

 

[StanJ]

In the physical sciences, when one states that something is assumed, it is not just a thought, idea or guess. Scientific assumptions are based falsifiable physical evidence that has been tested, retested, verified and re-verified.

Well that may be what the physical scientists say but that doesn't mean it's indeed practiced. Are you trying to Advocate that all physical scientists are ethical and aboveboard? Yes that's what scientific assumptions are supposed to be so have they been in this regard? In case you haven't figured it out yet I know exactly what I'm talking about the question is do you know what the so-called science is talking about and how they arrived at all these conclusions based on assumptions?

Not of Adam specifically, because we do not have his remains. However, we do have the remains of humans his age and older from which those physical aspects can be tested and quantified. Ken Ham likes to ask, "were you there"? The answer of course is no. However, God was and the evidence left behind is his for us to examine through the physics and chemistry he provides.

Not quite the same thing. However how would you know that the remains of humans his age where of humans his age at the time? But the question I asked was if somebody tested the man Adam that God made from the soil what would he test as one day or 20 years old. Do not think that a fully mature male species has to have the actual physical characteristics and construction of an actual 20 year old male? As such if he were able to be accurately measured at that time where do you not check out as a 20 year old male or would you check out as a one day old male which would eat leaves even more questions to The Observer?

 

[RickG]

How far back in time where they observed? Well as far as absorbing sunlight or supernova from millions of light-years distance you're assuming that God created the universe and we waited for the light to get here. I believe that when God created the universe just as it says in Genesis 2 he created light that was already here in an instant.

You are the one assuming, no me. It is measurable.

What do you accept for the age of the earth?

 

[StanJ]

By dating zircons through the Uranium/Lead series. Are you familiar with it? Here's a few describing the process.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024493795000224
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/12/16/petrology.egp082.short
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/21/4/339.short
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/32/9/817.short

You misunderstand, I said how did they observe? Nobody was there.