Sanctifying the age of the earth/universe

lasthero · May 29, 2019

Ophiolite said:
May I expect a response to my detailed post any time soon?

I’d hope so. He did ask for ‘substantive responses’, and yours was certainly that. It’d be strange if he just ignored it.

Ophiolite · May 29, 2019

lasthero said:
I’d hope so. He did ask for ‘substantive responses’, and yours was certainly that. It’d be strange if he just ignored it.

Yes, I hope so too. Given that my post was extensive, a proper response would require more than a few minutes at the keyboard. Perhaps tomorrow.

lifepsyop · May 29, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
I certainly did not say so. In the context of my sentence about things that YE creationists and scientists agree on, it doesn't seem likely that that's what I meant.

from wikipedia:
Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter

Everyone knows this is what abiogenesis refers to, but you're being deliberately obtuse about it.

essentialsaltes said:
Do you have three you would care to discuss? Ophiolite (and I) are eager to see your response.

I mentioned one decay rate in the OP that nobody is jumping to respond to. The whole concept of organic decay rates is now being rewritten because of the many recent discoveries of preserved organic material being found in dinosaur remains. This was admittedly shocking to the scientific community because it blew away all expectations of a upper limit age (perhaps a million years) that this material could be preserved. I still remember the evolutionists laughing about how the YECs were getting excited about bacterial contamination in fossils. It couldn't possibly be the original dinosaur material. lol

Now the evolutionary priesthood has decreed that organic material can instead be preserved for hundreds of millions of years. (They're probably hesitant to give any upper limit now)...

It's a perfect example of evolutionists explaining away a dating technique that contradicted their origins story. Not that any of you will be able to admit it, and plain as it is to see.

Yttrium · May 29, 2019

lifepsyop said:
Everyone knows this is what abiogenesis refers to, but you're being deliberately obtuse about it.

You really shouldn't cling so mightily to this "evolutionism" strawman. Abiogenesis, that something-from-nothing nonsense, etc. Is that strawman officially part of the YEC belief system these days?

lifepsyop · May 29, 2019

Ophiolite said:
1. You shouldn't believe anything.

Should I believe that?

Ophiolite said:
You should, however, accept the weight of argument and evidence that points to a particular hypothesis or theory as the best current explanation for those observations. Failure to do so is fatuous.

Your ideological camp clearly does not follow such ideals. Again, look at abiogenesis. The weight of evidence overwhelmingly points to the unlikelihood of such a thing happening in nature. When these problems pop up, you retreat to a philosophical position. ("Well, science can only deal with natural processes...")

So no, I don't take your claims to follow such ideals seriously at all. It's basically just propaganda for your side.

Ophiolite said:
2. Anyone who thinks that we ought to know everything is mistaken. The point about science is to carefully and methodically extend our knowledge. At any one time there will be much that we do not know. We have several excellent lines of evidence for the origin of the oceans and this is an active area of research. There is general agreement that the oceans waters were supplied by comets, asteroids and mantle outgassing. The uncertainty arises over the relative proportions of each.

Oh, so the water came from either inside or outside the earth, or some combination of both.

Ophiolite said:
3. Science does not demonstrate anything irrefutably. All hypotheses are provisional. The weight of evidence for the Earth being 4.5 billion years old is massive. To ignore this evidence would be delinquent.

Yea yea... "we're not making any truth claims, but you can't question our conclusions or else you're ignorant/stupid, etc." That tap-dance really gets old.

Ophiolite said:
1. The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism fought in the 19th century remains a battle that was won and whose victory remains in place today.

How vague. You guys don't like advertising this do you?

Ophiolite said:
The catastrophism of Victorian scientists is not the catastrophism we embrace today. That anachronistic catastrophism is long since - and rightly - rejected.

Uh huh... rejected by geologists now shown to be working from admittedly flawed assumptions.

Ophiolite said:
Today's catastrophism is responsible for occassional, distinctive events producing major impacts upon geology and biology, but the majority of geological and biological processes arise in a uniformitarian manner. That was not the concept that was fought over in the 19th century.

Is anyone supposed to be surprised that your ideological camp refuse to entertain any amount of catastrophism that would upset an evolutionary narrative? Just look how skiddish geologists were to even concede "catastrophism-lite",

Just look at the Missoula Floods controversy, which I'm sure you're aware of:

J Harlen Bretz - Wikipedia

Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated.

Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected

And this must resistance over just a relatively tiny catastrophe.
But don't worry everyone... rest assured, there is no more bias like that in scientific community.

Ophiolite said:
1. Simple. There is no evidence that radioactive decay rates have been different in the past and sufficient evidence that they were the same, so that there is no reason to consider the alternative to any depth.

If we assume that the age of the earth is younger, then by your own rules, this would be evidence that something unusual occurred with regard to radioactive decay rates. There have even been published secular papers that claim radioactive decay rates have been directly observed to fluctuate.

Your camp invented 85% of the matter in the universe out of thin air in order to support a favored theory of the universe, and just said it was invisible and totally undetectable "dark" matter. Not exactly a high standard of evidentiary proof to clear, is it? You may as well be invoking angels.

Ophiolite said:
2. Science does not deal with sanctified truths.

Science doesn't but evolutionists do. Let's not confuse the two.

Ophiolite said:
The uniformitarian view of decay rates is not an assumption, but an observation validated in multiple ways at multiple times.

Just like the uniformitarian view of geology until it was overturned.

Ophiolite said:
Please list the three that you consider the most important along with meaningful links to sound information on each.

See my last response to essentialsaltes on organic decay rates, also raised in the OP. Don't keep asking for examples when you've been given one in the OP.

Ophiolite said:
It sounds akin to the present tension between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Both theories are thoroughly tested and validated, yet at certain scales they are (currently) irreconcilable.

Big-Bang cosmology has been "thoroughly tested and validated", repeated as irrefutable truth, yet there remains an open letter to the scientific community signed by prominent physicists claiming that any dissenting voices to the theory are being silenced.

Open Letter on Cosmology

Put simply, conventional theories are not necessarily as ironclad as they are claimed to be. They may simply be theories that the institutions decide they will protect.

essentialsaltes · May 29, 2019

lifepsyop said:
I mentioned one decay rate in the OP that nobody is jumping to respond to.

That's because it's not the kind of thing I think we were expecting.

I was expecting the use of an established method of dating samples to provide a date that can't be accommodated in the accepted scientific timeline. Instead, we have a dinosaur bone that is as old as dinosaur bones are. That would appear to be consistent.

The whole concept of organic decay rates is now being rewritten because of the many recent discoveries of preserved organic material being found in dinosaur remains.

Yes, we learned something unexpected. But we already knew that the rate of decomposition of organic material depends a lot on the conditions. Which is why it is useless as a method for determining the age of a specimen.

It's a perfect example of evolutionists explaining away a dating technique.

What dating technique? When has the state of decomposition of a sample been used to date something? Even in forensics and the intensive study of body farms under many different conditions, the age of recently dead people is still subject to great uncertainties.

essentialsaltes · May 29, 2019

lifepsyop said:
When these problems pop up, you retreat to a philosophical position. ("Well, science can only deal with natural processes...")

Can you at least let us speak for ourselves? I don't need to retreat anywhere.

Things that are unlikely are unlikely, not impossible. I'm willing to consider alternatives that are more likely.

lifepsyop · May 29, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
Yes, we learned something unexpected. But we already knew that the rate of decomposition of organic material depends a lot on the conditions.

Fundamental thinking on physical processes were overhauled to accomodate evolutionary ages.

At no point could scientists sit back and say "Hey... maybe dinosaur remains aren't really as old as we thought?"

Because the age of the earth is now sanctified beyond question and all science must fall in line.

essentialsaltes said:
What dating technique? When has the state of decomposition of a sample been used to date something? Even in forensics and the intensive study of body farms under many different conditions, the age of recently dead people is still subject to great uncertainties.

So the organic material was totally unexpected in dinosaur remains based on what, a spooky hunch?

Decomposition rates are (or at least were, until it violated evolution religion) clearly a dating technique, not in the sense of honing in on specific dates, but certainly in establishing upper limits for the maximum age of remains. How could you argue that isn't a dating technique?

The idea of preserved organic material lasting for 65-100+ million years was considered ludicrous only several years ago.

essentialsaltes · May 29, 2019

lifepsyop said:
Decomposition rates are (or at least were, until it violated evolution religion) clearly a dating technique, not in the sense of honing in on specific dates, but certainly in establishing upper limits for the maximum age of remains. How could you argue that isn't a dating technique?

"Dating techniques are procedures used by scientists to determine the age of an object or a series of events."

Everyone knows this is what dating techniques refers to, but you're being deliberately obtuse about it.

lifepsyop · May 30, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
"Dating techniques are procedures used by scientists to determine the age of an object or a series of events."

Everyone knows this is what dating techniques refers to, but you're being deliberately obtuse about it.

Give me a break. Using decay rates to infer upper-limits or maximum ages of something is certainly a dating technique. That's literally what you're doing when you look for a maximum age, or latest time of death, etc. You are increasing understanding of the approximate date or age of a thing.

You say "even in forensics, the time of death is uncertain so it's not a real dating technique" ....

By your own standard you apparently just made up out of thin air to try and win an argument, even radiometric dating isn't an actual dating technique because there are typically margins of error +/- millions of years.

essentialsaltes · May 30, 2019

lifepsyop said:
Give me a break.

At best, we have updated our understanding of an not very accurate tool by using our very best tool.

You have accused scientists of 'explaining away', when all that is happening is explaining.

Steve Petersen · May 30, 2019

lifepsyop said:
Give me a break. Using decay rates to infer upper-limits or maximum ages of something is certainly a dating technique. That's literally what you're doing when you look for a maximum age, or latest time of death, etc. You are increasing understanding of the approximate date or age of a thing.

You say "even in forensics, the time of death is uncertain so it's not a real dating technique" ....

By your own standard you apparently just made up out of thin air to try and win an argument, even radiometric dating isn't an actual dating technique because there are typically margins of error +/- millions of years.

How precise do you need to be when you are talking about period of hundreds of millions or even billions of years ago? a few million years is nothing on these scales.

TLK Valentine · May 30, 2019

Steve Petersen said:
How precise do you need to be when you are talking about period of hundreds of millions or even billions of years ago? a few million years is nothing on these scales.

It's like knowing the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, but it doesn't count because we can't say if it was at 11:43 AM or 12:22 PM...

sjastro · May 30, 2019

On the subject of how the age of the Universe and Earth is measured, scientists use cosmochronometers which are the long lived radioactive isotopes ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, ²³⁸U, and ²⁴⁴Pu.
(Th Thorium, U Uranium, Pu Plutonium).

The heaviest nuclei produced in the cores of stars due to fusion is Fe (Iron).
The fusion of iron does not produce excess energy to counter gravitational collapse of the core.
Depending on the mass of the star the core either collapses into a Black Hole or the core rebounds to produce a supernova explosion.
Alternatively supernovas are caused by binary star systems containing a white dwarf which strip matter from the companion star, reaches a critical mass and explodes.
Stellar Death

The high kinetic energies in a supernova explosion allow the fusion of heavier nuclei than iron.
The radioactive isotopes ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, ²³⁸U, and ²⁴⁴Pu are formed by the capture of neutrons produced in supernova explosions in the envelopes of early generation stars.
With each generation of star formation, collapse and supernova explosion the proportion of metals increases in the production of new stars.
It should be noted that “metal” is defined as any element heavier than hydrogen and helium.
The metal poorest stars are therefore the oldest stars.

The cosmochronometers do not allow us to date back to the Big Bang event as the early Universe was dominated by radiation with the first atoms formed around 380,000 years later and the earliest galaxies less than a billion years later.

Each cosmochronometer has a different decay channel and as a result a different half life.
The age of an object can be calculated by comparing the original ratio of any given pair of cosmochronometers during formation to the ratio as measured now.

For example the original ratio K for ²³⁵U and ²³⁸U is;
K = ²³⁵U/²³⁸U = 1.3 with a precision of 10% based on theory.
The measured isotope ratio in the Earth’s crust is K₀ = ²³⁵U/²³⁸U = 0.007(23)

To compute the earth’s age we need the decay constants;
λ₂₃₈ = ln 2/(4.46 Gyr) and λ₂₃₅ = ln 2/(0.7038 Gyr)

The equation relating isotopic ratios, decay constants and time is given by the equation;
K = K₀ exp[(λ₂₃₈ - λ₂₃₅)t]
Solving for the time t, the Earth’s age gives;
t = 4.08 Gyr.
Pb-Pb (lead) dating of meteorite samples gives a more accurate value of 4.543 +/- 1% Gyr.

When it comes to measuring metal poor stars which are much older than the Earth using
K = ²³⁵U/²³⁸U is useless as the half life of ²³⁵U is too short.
The combination used is ²³²Th and ²³⁸U.

Here are a couple of examples.
Globular clusters exist in the galactic halo and are extremely old.
The ages of metal poor stars is around;
t = 12.7 +/- 2 Gyr

The very poor metal star CS 31082-001 in our galaxy is estimated at;
t = 12.5 Gyr.
How Old is the Universe? - First Reading of a Basic Cosmic Chronometer with UVES and the VLT
More recent measurements now put the age at;
t = 13.5 +/- 2.9 Gyr

lifepsyop · May 31, 2019

Steve Petersen said:
How precise do you need to be when you are talking about period of hundreds of millions or even billions of years ago? a few million years is nothing on these scales.

That was kind of my point. Decomposition rates afford very precise dates relative to the billions of years found in evolutionary timescales.

So we have learned that dinosaurs probably died only within the last million years (because there's so much preserved organic material found in their remains that should have been long gone) ... However because this is heresy to the Darwinian priesthood, long held principles of physical processes must now be rewritten to accomodate the evolutionary creation myth.

You could liken it to the way conventional science will just invent things like dark matter and claim it dominates the universe even though nobody can detect its existence. Dark matter was invented because without it, major observations contradict the theory, and a reigning metaphysical dogma would be in question.

After all the false propaganda about free-thinking and self-doubt, this is how "science" in our world actually operates. It is ideological gatekeeping. And why we were warned in Timothy to beware the doctrines of man and science falsely so called.

And it's really sad that professing believers will just tear up God's word to go along with it, because they're afraid of falling out of fashion with the world, and fear losing the respect of men.

essentialsaltes · May 31, 2019

lifepsyop said:
That was kind of my point. Decomposition rates afford very precise dates

No they don't. When archaeologists examine a site, they do not date it by examining the human remains and their state of decomposition. Why? Because that is neither a precise nor an accurate method for determining dates. What do they use instead?

lifepsyop · May 31, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
No they don't. When archaeologists examine a site, they do not date it by examining the human remains and their state of decomposition. Why? Because that is neither a precise nor an accurate method for determining dates. What do they use instead?

I said:

"Decomposition rates afford very precise dates relative to the billions of years found in evolutionary timescales."

Why did you cut off the last half of my statement? Because your argument wouldn't hold up otherwise?

essentialsaltes · May 31, 2019

lifepsyop said:
I said:

"Decomposition rates afford very precise dates relative to the billions of years found in evolutionary timescales."

Why did you cut off the last half of my statement? Because your argument wouldn't hold up otherwise?

No, because precise and accurate have specific meanings with relation to measurements.

What you really mean is that, with our previous understanding of decomposition, a few measurements gave us very different dates than those derived from radiometric dates.

Unsurprisingly, this difference was resolved by relying on the more accurate method, and revising our understanding of the less accurate method.

Steve Petersen · May 31, 2019

lifepsyop said:
So we have learned that dinosaurs probably died only within the last million years (because there's so much preserved organic material found in their remains that should have been long gone)

Are you referring to the purported dino blood found by Mary Schweitzer?

sjastro · May 31, 2019

lifepsyop said:
You could liken it to the way conventional science will just invent things like dark matter and claim it dominates the universe even though nobody can detect its existence. Dark matter was invented because without it, major observations contradict the theory, and a reigning metaphysical dogma would be in question.

Did you pick up this nonsense at the Tbolts electric universe site?
If this was true then why are idiotic particle physicists searching for dark matter in underground laboratories given dishonest cosmologists have invented it?

The ΛCDM model is a mainly a phenomenological model which deals with effects rather than causes and phenomenological evidence for dark matter is quite overwhelming; ranging from the non Keplerian orbits of galaxy rotation curves to the escape velocities of galaxies in clusters and the gravitational lensing of background galaxies by unseen matter.

Despite of what you may have read dark matter particles are known to exist in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos and dark matter share the same property of having a zero charge as opposed to a neutral charge and both weakly interact with ordinary matter.
The reason why scientists cannot declare dark matter is composed of neutrinos is the low mass of neutrinos can only account for about 1.5% of dark matter in the Universe.
Furthermore when the Universe was younger and hotter neutrinos are not able to clump resulting in the dark matter distribution as observed today through gravitational lensing.

Neutrino mass cannot be explained by the Standard Model of particle physics which accounts for all forms of ordinary matter and opens up the development to an extended model which could include particles that constitute dark matter.
Five mysteries the Standard Model can’t explain
It is for this reason why particle physicists are actively engaged in the search of dark matter.

Then there is the historical perspective.
In the 19th century there was a dark matter problem called Neptune.
Neptune wasn’t invented to explain the non Keplerian behaviour of the orbit of Uranus.
It was a result of Newtonian gravity being a linear theory where planetary orbits can be perturbed by objects; in this case by the yet undiscovered Neptune.
The rotation curves of galaxies are also modelled around Newtonian gravity and are perturbed by some unknown mass.

After all the false propaganda about free-thinking and self-doubt, this is how "science" in our world actually operates. It is ideological gatekeeping. And why we were warned in Timothy to beware the doctrines of man and science falsely so called.

Why do you support of the electric universe then?
Is the electric universe consistent with your faith or is it more likely based on the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

And it's really sad that professing believers will just tear up God's word to go along with it, because they're afraid of falling out of fashion with the world, and fear losing the respect of men.

Does this include having to believe the earth is flat and the centre of the Universe?

Sanctifying the age of the earth/universe

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Regular Member

Independent Centrist

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Stranger in a Strange Land

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Senior Veteran

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Similar threads