Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Where it gets muddy is some people want God but also try to mix in evolution without seeming to realize how that destroys numerous points of Biblical doctrine.

We must realize that "doctrine" is basically an interpretation of the Bible that has been enshrined and declared to be absolute truth. I realize that there are other possible interpretations of the same verses. I further also recognize that these interpretations are also conditioned by the world view and the philosophical background of those proclaiming it. I no longer regard doctrine as sacrosanct.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
This assumes that rates of decay have always been what we see now.

You should know there are also numerous non-radiometric methods for dating things, and that multiple methods are correlated with each other. For example: Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

Why would both radiometric and non-radiometric methods yield correlated dates if radioactive decay rates varied in the past? It makes no sense.

I believe due to the fall and the flood that nothing that gets measured as millions of years old is in fact over 10-20 thousand years old. This is what I believe is the strong delusion.

You do appear to be arguing for a deceptive universe.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
You should know there are also numerous non-radiometric methods for dating things, and that multiple methods are correlated with each other. For example: Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

Why would both radiometric and non-radiometric methods yield correlated dates if radioactive decay rates varied in the past? It makes no sense.

You do appear to be arguing for a deceptive universe.

Dating Techniques:

*Uranium to Lead --- minerals --- 1M to 4.5B years

*Rubidium to Strontium --- minerals --- 60M to 4.5B years

*Potassium to Argon --- minerals --- 10K to 3B years

*Uranium Series Disequibrium --- minerals, shell, bone, teeth, coral --- 0 to 0.4M years

*Carbon 14 --- minerals, shell, wood, bone, teeth --- 0 to 40K years

*Fission Track --- minerals, natural glass --- 0.5M to 1B years

*Thermoluminsecence --- minerals, natural glass --- 0 to 0.5M years

*Electron Spin Resonance --- minerals, teeth, shell, coral --- 1K to 1M years

*Geomagnetic Polarity --- minerals --- 0.8M to 200M years

*Amino Acid Racemization --- shells, other biocarbonates --- 500 to 0.3M years

*Obsidian Hydration --- natural glass --- 500 to 0.2M years

*Dendrochronology --- tree rings --- 0 to 12K years

*Lichenometry --- lichens --- 100 to 9K years

These and other dating technologies are remarkably consistent with each other. Each of course has its own limitations and like any scientific measurement or calculation each has a range of possible error which is carefully calculated.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You assume by 'appearance of age' that I am talking about millions of years, I'm not, 20 years would do nicely for Adam, Eve and the garden.

Well, since you used it as an argument against the age of the earth, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. Otherwise, what is the point of bringing it up in that circumstance? A 20 year inherent age of Adam is entirely irrelevant in a discussion about the age of the earth....unless you were suggesting the earth had millions of years of inherent age.


If you mean the stars, I think God could have easily put them in place and that mankind mistakenly thinks the light took that long to reach the earth. I don't believe that time is the same everywhere.

Nope. Starlight is not a method we use to measure the age of the earth.

I am talking about the laws governing the earth. The Bible says there was no death before sin. There was no decay in creation, that happened after the fall. Then laws changed again at and after the flood. I believe these changes mess up any attempts at man to date things.

So taking this off an evolutionary page.


So first assumption there is that the other rock and fossils show accurate dates which I contest.

Not assumed. Regularly tested. So regularly, in fact, that index fossils can be assigned ages because of how many times (lots of) they have been tested previously resulting in consistent dates.

Next is radiometric dating to measure the decay of isotopes. This assumes that rates of decay have always been what we see now.

No, we don't assume that at all. We have consistently tested it, using multiple unrelated methods. How do all the methods result consistently with the same wrong answer?

Additionally, we have purposely TRIED, unsuccessfully, to vary the decay rates, using pressure, magnetism, temperature, and many others. If we simply assumed they were the same, why run tests to try to falsify it?
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You do appear to be arguing for a deceptive universe.

The only deception is the scientific approach that assumes the facts gathered are correct and the assumption that decay rates have always been the same. The Bible isn't deceptive, it repeats itself numerous times to get the point across. A creation scientist and there are plenty with degrees, would assume the results for long ages is deceptive since it doesn't mesh with the Bible. Other clues like blood cells and connective tissue in '75 million' dinosaur fossils can also be used to show that the age it gives back is deceptive. Given that evolutionist won't even consider the age is wrong, they come up with other answers for things like this.

Not assumed. Regularly tested. So regularly, in fact, that index fossils can be assigned ages because of how many times (lots of) they have been tested previously resulting in consistent dates.

No, we don't assume that at all. We have consistently tested it, using multiple unrelated methods. How do all the methods result consistently with the same wrong answer?


Tested by what? By man-made methods that show the same result. Well, of course, they show the same results, they are using the same world laws to test them. It doesn't matter what the test is, it could be Rubidium to Strontium or Obsidian Hydration. You can't test creation, the world as it was then is long gone.
A quick Google of the second yields this Obsidian Hydration: A Cheap Way to Date Stone Tool Making -- Except...
By measuring the thickness one can easily determine if a particular artifact is older than another (relative age). If the rate at which water diffuses into the glass for that particular chunk of obsidian is known (that's the tricky part), you can use OHD to determine the absolute age of objects.

So here they are judging it by thickness? Again this still assumes things such as how long it took to lay down a certain amount of thickness. You can't test something without some basic assumptions. You toss up a ball and it falls back down is a basic assumption that most of us would say is gravity (apart from the flat Earthers-which is not shown in scripture). Here is an example of an assumption from that article.
you can typically assume that water vapour is constant within a site or region.
Sure, from what we can see right now. Who says it was that way before the flood? God said before that there wasn't rain but the water came up from under the ground to water the plants and the global flood was the first rain.
Also
Problematic Dating Technique
I didn't even go looking for problems, that was my first quick hit. Evolutionists don't want to acknowledge that any problems could be the theory is fundamentally wrong and wave them away with other 'facts' from tests whose bases were in fact more assumptions. Evolutionists hold onto evolution as strongly as I hold onto the Bible. As I said above blood cells in a 75 million year fossil points to young age which an evolutionist would never look at or agree to because its outside of what he thinks is a reasonable assumption.


Additionally, we have purposely TRIED, unsuccessfully, to vary the decay rates, using pressure, magnetism, temperature, and many others. If we simply assumed they were the same, why run tests to try to falsify it?

I'm sure scientists did, but since they don't have access to creation and the laws that were in place then, only the present world, the results will show for the present world.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Tested by what? By man-made methods that show the same result. Well, of course, they show the same results, they are using the same world laws to test them. It doesn't matter what the test is, it could be Rubidium to Strontium or Obsidian Hydration. You can't test creation, the world as it was then is long gone.
A quick Google of the second yields this Obsidian Hydration: A Cheap Way to Date Stone Tool Making -- Except...

So here they are judging it by thickness? Again this still assumes things such as how long it took to lay down a certain amount of thickness. You can't test something without some basic assumptions. You toss up a ball and it falls back down is a basic assumption that most of us would say is gravity (apart from the flat Earthers-which is not shown in scripture). Here is an example of an assumption from that article.

No, I quite clearly said different, unrelated methods.

We have tree rings dating back 12k years, lake varves 40k years, ice cores 800k years, as well as coral bands, speleothems, different types of radioactive decay...and they all agree with each other, despite the vastly different mechanisms.

It's not good enough to explain problems with each one individually. How do they all get the same wrong answer?

When you measure something with different tools that all result in the same answer, it is more likely that the measurement is correct. For example, if you measure a piece of wood with a ruler, a caliper, and a laser, and all three say it is a foot long, isn't it more likely that the wood is actually a foot long?

Sure, maybe the ruler is warped, the caliper is out of calibration, and the laser is being refracted, but if any of these were true, it's highly unlikely that they were each exactly off by the same amount to result in the same wrong answer.

So, the fact that our age measurement techniques all agree is very good evidence that things were the same in the past...not more assumption.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I quite clearly said different, unrelated methods.

We have tree rings dating back 12k years, lake varves 40k years, ice cores 800k years, as well as coral bands, speleothems, different types of radioactive decay...and they all agree with each other, despite the vastly different mechanisms.

It's not good enough to explain problems with each one individually. How do they all get the same wrong answer?

When you measure something with different tools that all result in the same answer, it is more likely that the measurement is correct. For example, if you measure a piece of wood with a ruler, a caliper, and a laser, and all three say it is a foot long, isn't it more likely that the wood is actually a foot long?

Sure, maybe the ruler is warped, the caliper is out of calibration, and the laser is being refracted, but if any of these were true, it's highly unlikely that they were each exactly off by the same amount to result in the same wrong answer.

You are completing missing what I am saying.
If you measure a piece of wood with a ruler, a calliper or a laser you are dealing with the here and now. If you said it was a foot (When are you Americans going to hop onto the metric system hmm?) I will beleive you.

Dating the age of the earth uses assumptions from things we see now and extrapolates them back to where no man alive can see or test. I know the tests will agree with each other, I expect them to be consistent with each other. You see evaporation rates, decay rate and gravity, and you assume they have always been that way. That works very well for right here and now, but to assume the decay rate or even gravity were exactly the same at creation is wrong. I can understand that people who don't believe in creation would assume the laws have always been the same as it would take a miracle to change them, but this is exactly what God said that happened. Creation, the changes at the fall and the global flood were miracles. Before the flood, the Bible says that people lived 800-900 years. Looking at the world now we know that is impossible. It's impossible now, but it wasn't then. The Bible says God literally changed the life span of mankind and I am guessing probably also the animals.

Genesis 6:3
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There are many verses that indicate the world then was vastly different to how it is now in ways that we can't comprehend. It would be like a 2-dimensional character looking at a 3-dimensional world and not understanding it. Then the Bible says God will make it back to how it was. Obviously not back to simple life forms in a primordial soup but, but back to how it was at creation. The beginning, middle and end of the world is woven all through scripture. You're an atheist I don't expect you to believe this, my posts are more directed to other Christians.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You are completing missing what I am saying.
If you measure a piece of wood with a ruler, a calliper or a laser you are dealing with the here and now. If you said it was a foot (When are you Americans going to hop onto the metric system hmm?) I will beleive you.

Dating the age of the earth uses assumptions from things we see now and extrapolates them back to where no man alive can see or test. I know the tests will agree with each other, I said they would because all are using the world as it is now. You see evaporation rates, decay rate and gravity, and you assume they have always been that way. That works very well for right here and now, but to assume the decay rate or even gravity was exactly the same at creation is wrong. I can understand that people who don't believe in creation would assume the laws have always been the same as it would take a miracle to change them, but this is exactly what God said that happened. Creation, the changes at the fall and the global flood were miracles. Before the flood, the Bible says that people lived 800-900 years. Looking at the world now we know that is impossible. It's impossible now, but it wasn't then. The Bible says God literally changed the life span of mankind and I am guessing probably also the animals.

Genesis 6:3
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There are many verses that indicate the world then was vastly different to how it is now in ways that we can't comprehend. It would be like a 2-dimensional character looking at a 3-dimensional world and not understanding it. Then the Bible says God will make it back to how it was. Obviously not back to simple life forms in a primordial soup but, but back to how it was at creation. The beginning, middle and end of the world is woven all through scripture. You're an atheist I don't expect you to believe this, my posts are more directed to other Christians.

No, I'm not missing your point. The fact that our tests agree is strong evidence that things worked the same in the past.

To claim otherwise, you'd need to explain how tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, coral bands, speleothems, and radiation were all varied (by different amounts, and vastly different mechanisms, over many locations across the world) in JUST SUCH A WAY that they all give us the same current [wrong] measurements.

Tree rings would have to grow faster, lake deposits faster still, ice cores MUCH faster, decay rates, both alpha and beta, FASTER STILL (and in different degrees depending on the isotope). And many more, with those increases all converging to give us the same wrong answer.

Then, if you claim miracle, you're left having to explain why god would want it to look like all these things have been consistent for many millennia.

It isn't ASSUMED rates were the same...we have extremely strong evidence they were.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, I'm not missing your point. The fact that our tests agree is strong evidence that things worked the same in the past.

To claim otherwise, you'd need to explain how tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, coral bands, speleothems, and radiation were all varied (by different amounts, and vastly different mechanisms, over many locations across the world) in JUST SUCH A WAY that they all give us the same current [wrong] measurements.

Tree rings would have to grow faster, lake deposits faster still, ice cores MUCH faster, decay rates, both alpha and beta, FASTER STILL (and in different degrees depending on the isotope). And many more, with those increases all converging to give us the same wrong answer.

Then, if you claim miracle, you're left having to explain why god would want it to look like all these things have been consistent for many millennia.

It isn't ASSUMED rates were the same...we have extremely strong evidence they were.
I think what @coffee4u is trying to say is that the miracles he claims occurred had exactly the effect you say BUT he has no explanation other than his interpretation of Genesis. Better still, he has no need of any other explanation. All he needs:
  1. Hand wave
  2. God Works In Mysterious Ways
  3. Ignore biblical scholarship
  4. Deny contrary evidence
And voila, creation is demonstrated to be the logical conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think what @coffee4u is trying to say is that the miracles he claims occurred had exactly the effect you say BUT he has no explanation other than his interpretation of Genesis. Better still, he has no need of any other explanation. All he needs:
  1. Hand wave
  2. God Works In Mysterious Ways
  3. Ignore biblical scholarship
  4. Deny contrary evidence
And voila, creation is demonstrated to be the logical conclusion.

Which is why I included my penultimate paragraph. ;)
 
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

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think what @coffee4u is trying to say is that the miracles he claims occurred had exactly the effect you say BUT he has no explanation other than his interpretation of Genesis. Better still, he has no need of any other explanation. All he needs:
  1. Hand wave
  2. God Works In Mysterious Ways
  3. Ignore biblical scholarship
  4. Deny contrary evidence
And voila, creation is demonstrated to be the logical conclusion.

Point 1 and 2, you call hand wave, I call faith.
Not sure what you mean by point 3. I believe in creation precisely because of evangelical Biblical doctrine.

I'm female so you know the saying about the last word *leaves as I have nothing more to add until I have more to add*
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Point 1 and 2, you call hand wave, I call faith.
Not sure what you mean by point 3. I believe in creation precisely because of evangelical Biblical doctrine.

I'm female so you know the saying about the last word *leaves as I have nothing more to add until I have more to add*
I apologise for thinking you were male.

Everything else I said still stands, and you have pretty much just confirmed.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Point 1 and 2, you call hand wave, I call faith.
Not sure what you mean by point 3. I believe in creation precisely because of evangelical Biblical doctrine.

I'm female so you know the saying about the last word *leaves as I have nothing more to add until I have more to add*

So that's what you're going with? GWIMW, as an explanation for why 12k tree rings (of at least 2 different species and several world locations) have accumulated in only 6k years (or less, if due to the flood) AND why 40k distinct layers of sediment (complete with seasonal diatom growth patterns in each layer) are squeezed into 6k years, AND why 800,000 years worth of ice cores (including seasonal variations in oxygen isotope ratios in each layer) are squeezed into 6k years AND why at least a dozen different radioactive decay constants sped up (by different amounts, and somehow without vaporizing the earth)?

So, tree rings sped up by a factor of between 2 to 3...
Lake varves by a factor of 6 to 9...
Ice cores by a factor of 130 to 170...
decay constants by a factor of up to several millions

And they all came up to the answer of 42? (Douglas Adams reference...nevermind)

And somehow...the 10,000th tree ring, the 10,000th lake varve, and the 10,000th ice core all have the same concentration of radiocarbon, which ALSO happens to correlate with the current observations for the decay rate of C14?

But that doesn't actually indicate 10k years have passed, since GWIMW?

Sorry, but I could not believe such a "mysterious" thing, even if I wanted to more than anything else in life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what Bungle_Bear meant by #3 is that a quite large majority of Biblical scholars do not interpret the Bible to indicate a young earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,794
36,089
Los Angeles Area
✟820,146.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
There are many verses that indicate the world then was vastly different to how it is now in ways that we can't comprehend. It would be like a 2-dimensional character looking at a 3-dimensional world and not understanding it.

But there is no evidence of any vast difference. As far as the laws of physics go, we have strong evidence of sameness through space and time. It is not like the Simpsons breaking into 3D and being bewildered -- It is the exact opposite of bewilderment -- it's situation normal throughout the earth and throughout space.
 
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But there is no evidence of any vast difference. As far as the laws of physics go, we have strong evidence of sameness through space and time. It is not like the Simpsons breaking into 3D and being bewildered -- It is the exact opposite of bewilderment -- it's situation normal throughout the earth and throughout space.

I'll agree that we might assume a spacial uniformity of the laws of physics, but this doesn't mean that the things that someone like Lee Smolin might proffer are off the table for consideration ...
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The assumption of the uniformity of physical laws across space and time is quite valid until such time as there is the slightest evidence that things might have changed. We are still waiting for such evidence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
It's too bad that many Christians don't accept Rabbi Moses Maimonides' advice that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken as literal history --- they are folklore and borrowed myth to fill in the gap in the period before the Israelites' emergence as a self-aware cultural entity.

As I mature in my Christian faith I am coming to realize more and more that a very great deal of our sacred scripture is not to be read literally.
It's not surprising really. In oral traditions, stories were used as 'memory palaces' - ways of passing on important moral and cultural lessons and ideas in a memorable format that everyone could follow. Much of the time whether they were literally true or not was irrelevant; even historical events would be retold as embellished stories - remembering the salient points was more important than literal accuracy, and who would contradict you if you made your own people the heroes?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
See my point 2 GWIMW

It's the most effective "Get out of jail free" card
That's how it's used - but it's like playing the Joker card in a game. The game is wound up and everyone goes away muttering.

It's even less of an explanation than, "God, because he wants to <..insert reason here..>", which is no explanation at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
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