Question for Creationists
- Thread starter LogicChristian
- Start date
Prometheus_ash
Metaphysical Bet Taker
Grengor said:So what is he left with? Christian theology. Oh no
He is left with almost all the liberal arts majors, bussiness, some kinds of engineers, sociol sciences, law, gov't theory,theology, a language, mathmatics, philosophy, etc.
Though philosophy might be a dangerous one to get into, depending on where you go. But considerin that even heavily christian schools make you read at least some philosophy from non christain writers, it can't be guarenteed. And philosophy is unsafe especially if you take any philosophy of science classes (a requirement at some schools).
Besides, creationists tend not to do well with that "logic" thing
Upvote
0
Brilliand
Benevolent dictator for hire
- Oct 3, 2005
- 6,163
- 88
- 36
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I am YEC, but am still in high school. I don't intend to major in anything related to evolution either, although I study physics almost as a hobby. If you ever see me make an argument (whenever I visit this forum I get sidetracked with the forum games and roleplay) it will involve primarily physics.
By the way, I have calculated the universe to be approximately 10^80 cubic meters in volume right now. This is with a Big Bang sort of expansion for the universe, so I believe the universe is ten billion years old (the Earth is still six thousand, starting at the beginning of the universe).
I am eager to have somebody either agree wiht me or show me to be wrong. I made the calculation myself and am eager for a response of any kind.
By the way, I have calculated the universe to be approximately 10^80 cubic meters in volume right now. This is with a Big Bang sort of expansion for the universe, so I believe the universe is ten billion years old (the Earth is still six thousand, starting at the beginning of the universe).
I am eager to have somebody either agree wiht me or show me to be wrong. I made the calculation myself and am eager for a response of any kind.
Upvote
0
Maxwell511
Contributor
- Jun 12, 2005
- 6,073
- 260
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Physics is not directly related to evolution (except when creationists try to make silly misapplications of the 2LoT), but YEC does contradict basic tenets of it.Brilliand said:
Radiometric dating:
Take Quantum Mechanics and apply the principle of quantum tunneling to the nucleus to get the probability of the nucleus decaying at any given moment. Now with this probability you know that at any given period of time, a fraction of the particles in your sample are going to decay, and this fraction is proportional to the number of particles you have.
dN = kNdt
dN is the change in particles. k is the constant, N is the number of particles you have. dt is the change in time
dN/dt = kN
solve this and you get
N(t) = N_0 * e^(-kt)
N_0 is the number of particles you started out with.
Every nucleus has a given probability of decaying at any given moment. There current exists no known way to change this probability except for the obvious:
-Changing the number of protons and/or neutrons in the nucleus (thus changing the type of nucleus)
-Putting the nucleus in a relativistic frame (either by moving really really fast, or subjecting it to lots and lots of gravity).
-Extremely high temperatures.
As such, your claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old, contradicts a basic consequence of physics considering that various dating methods (different isotopes and whatnot) applied to many different samples all give an age of the Earth of about 4.6 billion years.
There are also objects that are about 13 billion light years away, thus contradicting your "10 billion year earth" universe hypothesis.
Upvote
0
Maxwell511
Contributor
- Jun 12, 2005
- 6,073
- 260
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I think that the old creationist agrument is that we can't know N_0.
(But they neglect that you do you the amount of "decayed" particles.)
(But they neglect that you do you the amount of "decayed" particles.)
Upvote
0
Maxwell511
Contributor
- Jun 12, 2005
- 6,073
- 260
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
wagsbags said:
Why is this? Honestly I thought because they could see the other isotopes. I know you will know more about it than me. Thanks in advance.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Even if you were right when you first made the calculation, you would no longer be correct now, seeing as how the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. I'm interested in those calculations as well.
Upvote
0
wagsbags
Senior Member
Maxwell511 said:
I can't really figure out my notes but it does have to do with other isotopes and involves ratios between parent, daughter and another stable daughter isotope. I'll try to figure out exactly how it works a little later but I've got some work to do. Also http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2022 explains it at least a little.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The abundance of the daughter isotope tells you how much has decayed. The presence of the parent isotope tells you how much didn't decay. If you know the half-life. Say N_d is the number of daughter particles and N_p is the number of parent particles. (t is what we're trying to find--the age of the rock)wagsbags said:
N_p = N_0e^(-kt)
(How much is left over is equal to how much the equation predicts should be left over)
N_p + N_d = N_0
(The sum of how much of the parent isotope there is plus how much the daughter isotope should equal the original quantity of the parent isotope).
N_p + N_d = N_p*e^(kt)
You have N_p, you have N_d, you have k (k=ln(2)/half-life), just solve for t. Also notice that in the last equation, knowledge of N_0 is not required.
Edit - I should also add that it is assumed that the daughter isotope is not present at t=0 and that everything that is inside the sample, stays in the sample. Otherwise, the equations get more complicated but still, far from undoable.
Edit2 - It also assumes that the daughter isotope is stable, otherwise, you have to factor that in too.
Upvote
0
wagsbags
Senior Member
RoboMastodon said:
Yeah generally it's more complicated since you might not be able to assume that no daughter is present. But with the presence of another stable daughter isotope you can relax that assumption and the age can still be calculated. I just don't have time to figure out exactly how from my notes right now :S Has something to do with graphing it and obtaining the y-intercept. Oh well, in any case even creationists nowadays rarely claim that you need to know the original amount present.
Upvote
0
Brilliand
Benevolent dictator for hire
- Oct 3, 2005
- 6,163
- 88
- 36
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
The universe isn't expanding that fast, compared with its size. It should take quite a lot of time for my calculation to become wrong; I'm only claiming it to the nearest order of magnitude, and I rounded up.
I got the numebr two diffferent ways. The first one was relatively simple: I took the formula for the surface of a hypersphere and input ten billion light years as the radius. This assumes the Big Bang model of expansion and a statement by a news article I glanced at briefly. However, putting in 20 billion years didn't make a significant change.
I justified this against my YEC beliefs by claiming that the Earth was far younger than the universe, despite having the same start date, by virtue of relativity. I havent' actually pursued that line of thought.
The second calculation was a bit wierder. I took the speed of light as the speed of motion, and solved using one of Newton's formulas for the orbit distance. Since the mass of the object being orbited (the universe) influences the orbit as well, I came up with a number in the units "cubic kilograms per cubic meter." I used this, combined with the density of the universe, to get the mass and volume of the universe. I would have simply thrown out this new calculation had it contradicted my previous result, but they agreed perfectly, as far as my memory served.
I didn't save my exact numbers, so I would have to do the calaculation again to give them to you.
Upvote
0
Maxwell511
Contributor
- Jun 12, 2005
- 6,073
- 260
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Brilliand said:
So the earth is moving at a speed close to the speed of light relative to the "older" parts of the universe or it is in the presence of a "massive" gravitional field.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Huh? Perhaps Im misunderstanding, but this doesnt make much sense. How do you conclude relativity from Genesis? Are there any other time spans/ages we can fudge by claiming relativity? You say that you used the big bang model in your calculations. Why should we see this abrupt and arbitrary shift in physics as anything other than rationalization?Brilliand said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
