Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree with all of the above. And I do think it is better for someone who thinks Schweitzer and her findings supports YEC to hear her explain that she is a deeply Christian woman, and why her findings in no way support YEC.Her work is regularly misrepresented, but there isn’t much to debunk in that paragraph.
It does indicate that scientists are willing to accept and investigate findings that appear to challenge the status quo though.... despite what creationists assert.
You’ve been given an example.You know, in pretty much every thread of yours that I've read, each time you try to make it science-y, what you end up doing instead is demonstrating that you simply haven't got a clue with regard to whatever it is that you think you are scoring points with.
That, in itself, is not surprising as you appear to be simply replaying arguments that you've encountered elsewhere. Considering that your science education is clearly abysmal, it's no wonder that you come off looking like an idiot. As indeed you are doing now.
After trying to work what the heck you think you are talking about, I've come to the conclusion that you're not making the argument that you think you are. That's really quite an accomplishment.
Still, instead of all of this hand-waving and nebulous assertions, how about you demonstrate some knowledge and give us some figures?
If you can't do the necessary maths then, again, you are out of your depth and there's no point in anyone taking you seriously. At all.
Fortunately, the necessary equations are easy to find, and as one of my old professors used to say: "you put in the numbers, and turn [the] handle to score".
So, come on then, clever clogs. From first principles, show us the calculations to demonstrate the magnitude of the error that you think people are ignoring.
p.s. If you get the right answer - you're going to look really, really, really, silly.
And, no, I'm not doing it for you.
What I find interesting is that the guy who discovered soft tissue before her and expressed doubts about the age of dinosaurs was dismissed from his job. While she finds soft tissue, supports the age and is applauded for a job well done and given credit as the first discoverer, with the fame and wealth that follows.I agree with all of the above. And I do think it is better for someone who thinks Schweitzer and her findings supports YEC to hear her explain that she is a deeply Christian woman, and why her findings in no way support YEC.
It does indicate that scientists are willing to accept and investigate findings that appear to challenge the status quo though.... despite what creationists assert.
What I find interesting is that the guy who discovered soft tissue before her and expressed doubts about the age of dinosaurs was dismissed from his job.
Oh, it's a giant conspiracy, involving virtually all scientists, of virtually all faiths, from virtually all cultures, and they've all gotten together and conspired to produce fake results just so people will believe the bible isn't true...even all the deeply Christian scientists.While she finds soft tissue, supports the age and is applauded for a job well done and given credit as the first discoverer, with the fame and wealth that follows.
Because you believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories science is finished?There goes science....
Nope, it's because the facts support an old earth.Do you really wonder why there are so few dissenters?
That's the whole point - there is no 'true' age, it depends on the frame of reference, and there is no preferred frame.It's absolutely required to calculate the true age of the radioactive sample we just accelerated.
The starting frame is just as valid as any other frame. It is not 'the only reliable measurement', it is just the measurement from the starting frame - useful and relevant only if you want to calculate differences relative to that frame.It isn't 30 units of time old, but only 20. As I said, you will treat this frame as an absolute frame and not even realize you are doing so. If you really believed everything is relative, you'd understand the starting frame is just as valid. To them the sample is only 15 years old. Since the stationary frames clocks haven't changed, their frame is the only reliable measurement....
No, they'd age less than those that started in the same frame and had not accelerated. For other objects, you need to compare their inertial history over the relevant period. Ageing more or less is always relative to some other frame of reference.If both ships remained stationary and the earth accelerated away, those on earth would age less then they once did.
No, because the expansion is a scalar expansion of the metric itself, so the Earth was not accelerated through space by it. I already explained that. The big bang was not an explosion flinging matter outwards. See Expansion of the Universe.Oh, wait, the earth did just that as the universe expanded....
It's meaningless without some comparison. An object that has accelerated in a certain period will age less than an object that started in the same frame but didn't accelerate.You don't need any other frame to compare it to. You ALREADY KNOW accelerating frames age less.
Time dilation is always relative to some reference frame; you can choose any frame you like.Why the cop out to deny what you already know to be true?
I said it can detect its motion relative to the other object. Each object is in motion relative to the other. Do you really understand what 'relative' means in this context?No it can't. According to the frame doing the observation it is the other object in motion.
No, gravity is equivalent to acceleration - that's why its call the Equivalence principle; equivalence is not identity. As I said, the expansion of the universe doesn't accelerate the Earth, but even if it did, Earth's gravitational field would not change significantly; gravitational time dilation is simply not relevant.It is relevant here. Gravity is the same as acceleration. Less gravitational potential means a faster decay effect, like when the earth was accelerating slower.....
So what does hold galaxies together?Gravity is virtually non-existent and has nothing to do with galaxies.
You’ve been given an example.
If a sample decays at 2 units per 1 unit of time for 10 years and is then accelerated so that it now decays at 1 unit per unit of time for 10 years.
The sample has decayed 30 units, but has only experienced 20 units of time..
Heck, some of these arguments are over a half-century old.
science is ever changing. That’s why we know the coelacanth claimed for 20 years as proof of transitory species was a bunch of bull excrement.Yeah, but then creationists just complain that science is ever changing. There's no winning that one.
Apparently not for good reasons since they gave him 6 figures to hush it up.Why was he dismissed?
The only one that sees a conspiracy is you. I certainly believe they believe what they say they believe. Just like Ptolemy certainly believed his model was correct too and had the math to back it up. The only conspiracy is the straw man you just presented.Oh, it's a giant conspiracy, involving virtually all scientists, of virtually all faiths, from virtually all cultures, and they've all gotten together and conspired to produce fake results just so people will believe the bible isn't true...even all the deeply Christian scientists.
I agree the earth is old. So don’t know why you keep trying to insist in straw man conspiracy theories? Perhaps because that’s the only avoidance you have? The age of the earth doesn’t change the facts that life only adapts but stays within its species. That’s why all new life forms arise after every mass destruction fully formed. I’d present the numbers 6 and 5, but you wouldn’t understand the reference since you all keep confusing me with someone that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. Even the Bible doesn’t teach that.Because you believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories science is finished?
Um, OK?
Nope, it's because the facts support an old earth.
It hasn't. Scientific fact of time dilation. They simply date it older than it is because they do not account for time dilation.
Waiting for a response for post #118, 119, #120 and #124 @Tolkien R.R.J
Hmm, the twin in motion also thinks he didn’t age slower, but we know that just isn’t true. In fact he thinks the stationary twin is aging slower, but we definitely know that isn’t true, he’s stationary, his clocks don’t change at all.Time dilation is utterly irrelevant to the measurement of the age of the Earth by radioactive decay. Both the rock being dated and all measurements of the radioactive decay rate are on Earth -- in Earth's reference frame. Time dilation relative to any other place are not germane. So it doesn't matter at all what the relative velocity of the distant universe is or why it seems to be moving away from us.
BTW-- Neither the age or the Earth, radioactive decays, nor the cosmic redshift are evolution.
science is ever changing. That’s why we know the coelacanth claimed for 20 years as proof of transitory species was a bunch of bull excrement.
Apparently not for good reasons since they gave him 6 figures to hush it up.
https://blog.godreports.com/2017/08...after-he-found-soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones/
You described a conspiracy. You said the person who actually made the discovery questioned the age of the bones, and was dismissed. And Schweitzer, who agreed with science regarding the age of the bones was given credit. Now you're claiming someone was given huge sums of money as hush money because an animal wasn't a "transitory species."The only one that sees a conspiracy is you. I certainly believe they believe what they say they believe. Just like Ptolemy certainly believed his model was correct too and had the math to back it up. The only conspiracy is the straw man you just presented.
I agree the earth is old.
Oh, I mistook the conspiracy you believe in. Why would you believe that virtually all the scientists in the world conspired to lie about evolution?The age of the earth doesn’t change the facts that life only adapts but stays within its species.
Absolutely required because you were once in that frame, experiencing its rate of time. It’s rate of time is not the same as your current rate of time. So the only way to calculate the true amount of time passed in both frames, is to calculate for both frames.That's the whole point - there is no 'true' age, it depends on the frame of reference, and there is no preferred frame.
The starting frame is just as valid as any other frame. It is not 'the only reliable measurement', it is just the measurement from the starting frame - useful and relevant only if you want to calculate differences relative to that frame.
But they too started in that frame and passed time in that frame at that rate. To then ignore that time is ignoring reality.No, they'd age less than those that started in the same frame and had not accelerated. For other objects, you need to compare their inertial history over the relevant period. Ageing more or less is always relative to some other frame of reference.
Oh I understand your pseudoscience perfectly. You want two objects to be moving away from one another at an increasing rate without accelerating. Epicycles are alluring, I know. As with the river example. The boats may not have motion with respect to the water, but by every known scientific measurement they are still accelerating away from one another.No, because the expansion is a scalar expansion of the metric itself, so the Earth was not accelerated through space by it. I already explained that. The big bang was not an explosion flinging matter outwards. See Expansion of the Universe.
And yet you refuse to calculate for the time the accelerated object spent in the non accelerated frame aging faster.....It's meaningless without some comparison. An object that has accelerated in a certain period will age less than an object that started in the same frame but didn't accelerate.
Time dilation happens to any moving object whether you compare it to another frame or not. You confuse being able to observe it as different than experiencing it. Whether the twin in motion compares his clock to another frame or never even looks at his clock, it still slows.Time dilation is always relative to some reference frame; you can choose any frame you like.
No, it can detect the other objects motion relative to it. All objects measure themselves as having no velocity. You can then assume you are in motion, but you never detect your motion relative to anything. You detect the other objects motion relative to you.I said it can detect its motion relative to the other object. Each object is in motion relative to the other. Do you really understand what 'relative' means in this context?
e·quiv·a·lentNo, gravity is equivalent to acceleration - that's why its call the Equivalence principle; equivalence is not identity. As I said, the expansion of the universe doesn't accelerate the Earth, but even if it did, Earth's gravitational field would not change significantly; gravitational time dilation is simply not relevant.
Electromagnetism, but if you stopped treating plasma like ordinary gas and treated it like plasma you would have known that already.So what does hold galaxies together?
There is no 'true' amount of time, only elapsed time relative to another frame.Absolutely required because you were once in that frame, experiencing its rate of time. It’s rate of time is not the same as your current rate of time. So the only way to calculate the true amount of time passed in both frames, is to calculate for both frames.
There is no unique or absolute 'actual' time that has passed, only time passed relative to another frame.It is absolutely vital you calculate for both frames to get an accurate accounting of the actual time that has passed.
You don't ignore it if you want the time difference relative to that frame. In all other respects, it's irrelevant.But they too started in that frame and passed time in that frame at that rate. To then ignore that time is ignoring reality.
The rate of increase of distance between them is accelerating, but, because its due to scalar expansion of spacetime, they do not change inertial frames. It's not an easy concept to grasp, but most people can manage it. Consider that any observer in the universe will see galaxies moving away from her in every direction she looks.Oh I understand your pseudoscience perfectly. You want two objects to be moving away from one another at an increasing rate without accelerating.
Epicycles work very well; they're just complicated. The boats are accelerating through spacetime; this is different from the spacetime around them expanding.Epicycles are alluring, I know. As with the river example. The boats may not have motion with respect to the water, but by every known scientific measurement they are still accelerating away from one another.
I haven't refused to calculate anything, and I agree that if two objects start in the same frame, the one that subsequently accelerates ages slower than the other. But if you'd like to show me how the calculation is done, go ahead.And yet you refuse to calculate for the time the accelerated object spent in the non accelerated frame aging faster.....
An object is always moving with reference to some other frame; there is a potentially infinite number of other possible frames (velocities). The time dilation observed depends on the relative velocity between frames, so the observed time dilation varies according to the frame selected. For two objects in relative motion (i.e. separate frames), each will observe the other's time to run slow by the same amount.Time dilation happens to any moving object whether you compare it to another frame or not.You confuse being able to observe it as different than experiencing it. Whether the twin in motion compares his clock to another frame or never even looks at his clock, it still slows.
Relative motion means that the motion of an object relative to you is the same thing as your motion relative to that object. Whether you consider yourself to be stationary with respect to that object or that object to be stationary with respect to you is an arbitrary choice (usually dependent on a wider context). For objects in uniform relative motion observations and measurements from either object give the same results and are equally valid. You see their time run slow, they see your time run slow.No, it can detect the other objects motion relative to it. All objects measure themselves as having no velocity. You can then assume you are in motion, but you never detect your motion relative to anything. You detect the other objects motion relative to you.
Argument by dictionary is weak - it ignores specific context; but if you want to be pedantic, acceleration is a physical quantity which gives the rate of change of velocity, and gravity is the force that acts between two bodies due to their mass. The effect of an accelerating force is indistinguishable from, and equivalent to, the effect of gravity. Gravity and acceleration are qualitatively different things.e·quiv·a·lent
əˈkwiv(ə)lənt/
adjective
1. equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.
"one unit is equivalent to one glass of wine"
synonyms: equal, identical, same
Nothing more needs said on your attempts at double-talk.
As an attractive force, electromagnetism dominates at small, e.g. molecular, scales; at large scales, e.g. cosmological, scales, gravity dominates, and the net electric charge of astronomical bodies is relatively insignificant.Electromagnetism, but if you stopped treating plasma like ordinary gas and treated it like plasma you would have known that already.
It is so cool how you sometimes provide a citation to the original source material, even though you copied, verbatim, your blurb from unattributed sources. Like the seal one - you copied that blurb from here, whereas the original source does not contain that phrase.Radiometric Dating
"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages".
-Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating" Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]
What they are measuring is not ages but rather a ratio of a “parent” element to a “daughter” element, that alone cant give you a age. The parent element in the rock decays at a observable rate under normal conditions into its daughter element. Only when the evolutionist adds his assumptions does he believe he can get a “age” from the rock. These unprovabel assumptions are the downfall of radio metric dating as a claim to prove the earth is older than the biblical account. All the assumptions used have been at one time or another have been shown false. In fact evolutionist will claim that past rates such as the mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were different in the past.
Assumptions
1] That each system is a closed system. Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products being measured.
2] Each system most initially have contained no daughter components, which is unprovable.
3] The process rate must always be the same.
Some other assumptions. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet this could greatly effect the clocks in minerals.
Carbon dating assumptions
1] The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
2] The very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
3] Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
4] Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
5] The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
6] Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.
“It [c-14 ]is not an infallible technique, and, as any field archaeologist knows, contamination of the sample is always a serious possibility. Trusting the method to produce an “absolute date” for a single artifact was absurd.” -Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (June, 1983), p. 307.
7] No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.
8] The fraction of carbon 14 which the living thing possessed at death is today known.
9] Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
10 Earth's magnetic field: Earth's magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today
“A stronger magnetic field is significant because the magnetic field partly shields the earth from the influx of cosmic rays, which change nitrogen atoms into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. So a stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays. This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower carbon-14 concentration than it does today...So if you mistakenly assume that the radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere and biosphere have always been the same as they are today, you would erroneously estimate much older dates for early human artifacts, such as post-Babel wooden statuettes in Egypt. And that is exactly what conventional archaeology has done.”
-Dr. Andrew A Snelling Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
For more on the decay of the magnetic field see here
https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....etic-Field.pdf
Other Issues
Radiometric dating falls outside of the realm of science since science must be observable. The rocks and their decay from parent to daughter has not been observed through the samples entire supposed millions or billions of years since its formation. Radiometric dating would not work unless the evolutionist already had an earth history time line in place. When you send the sample in they ask you what layer it was found in and with which fossils. Otherwise they would not know what dates are “good” and what are “bad” since variations occur. Any date that returns in contradiction to the fossils and evolutionary time line, is than declared a “bad” date and disregarded as contaminated or some other excuse.
“No evidence contrary to the accepted framework is allowed to remain. Evolution stands, old earth ideas stand,g no matter what the true evidence revels. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid evidence according to its fit with evolution...observation plays second fiddle to the assumptions ”
-John Morris The Young Earth
The KBS Tuff is a great example. The KBS Tuff was originally dated 230 million years old. The evolutionist exspalined it away as excessive decay because it did not match with the fossils. Than it was given a new date of 2.6 million years dated by 3 separate methods that all confirmed and was used as a great example of the proof and accuracy of radiometric dating. But than a human fossil was found in the layer and they know redated the layer at 1.8 million years confirmed by radiometric dating yet once more. Another great example is Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina argon/argon dated at 212 million years. This date agreed with the surrounding ages of rock the fossil wood from a extinct species of tree. However bird tracks were also found but were explained away as some bird type dinosaur and the age for the formation was published in the journal Nature in 2002. Than other evolutionist showed the tracks were from a modern sandpiper [not yet evolved] a small common bird. The rocks were redated to 37 million years old by lead/uranium dating to match the bird tracks. The former dates were explained away as faulting. The fossils decide the age not the radiometric dating. Dates are only accepted if they go along with what evolutionist already claim the age of a layer.
"‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."
-T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].
"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"."
-Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]
Most samples are only tested by one method, when multiple methods are applied you often get contradictory results. If one matches the predetermined age, it is accepted and the rest are rejected. Radiometric dating would disprove the evolutionary time line of earth history if it were not for evolutionist preconceived ideas about ages and fossils and their willingness to throw out any “date” that does not conform to their beliefs. Worse still, some published and accepted dates are imaginary. Take the example of German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who over his 30 year career “systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” Some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum. Added that carbon dating and radiometric dating can also be used to show the earth is young.
Some of the results from observable history
“If it doesn't work whenever it can be checked for essentially all recently formed rock date old. How dare we assume this assumption is trustworthy when no checks can be applied”
-John Morris the Young earth
Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. -W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)
living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago.
- M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.
Mortar from Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7,370 years old, yet the castle itself was only built 785 years ago.
-E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.
10 years after the Mount Saint Helen explosion rocks were potassium argon dated at 350,000 years. Different methods gave different results with an average age of 2.8 million.
Mount Ngaruuhoe from 1954 was potassium argon dated at 3.5 million years old. Another sample gave “ages” of .8 million years.
A 1800-1801 Honolulu flow in Hawaii returned ages of 2.6 and 2.96 million years.
1969 lava flows in Africa were rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
-k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572
Mt Etna was tested 24 years later and dated at .35 million
A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years.
-Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years
-G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55
Wood was cut out of living, growing trees and tested. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago. - B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)
"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146
Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old.
-Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210
a coal mine in Queensland Australia potassium argon dated at 39-58 million years and carbon dated at 30-45,000 years old.
-See the young earth John Morris
Here are some quick links to hundreds of young earth dates
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...e-evidence
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.p...inars&v=10
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...erse-video
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...universe-2
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...lar-system
http://creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock...-timeframe
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0907.pdf
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...blue-stars
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedi...s_ev_4.htm
The research team investigated the amount of diversity among today’s human genes and how long it took to reach the current amount of diversity. They concluded that human genes diversified recently. The authors wrote, “The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?