Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[AV1611VET]

.... like Fruminous saying "Zebra Man" for no apparent reason.

He said what he was prompted to say.

Mention Mohammad or Allah or Ahura Mazda, and I'd hardly gotten a "meh."

Mention Jesus Christ though, and Satan sends his spokespersons all over it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Tried to put correct article link in and... well, I made a mess of that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Since I've been making more use of the ignore button (the big three - Aman, AV and Dad) I get to see some quite strange things.... like Fruminous saying "Zebra Man" for no apparent reason.

Did you miss the AV quote I was replying to? "... the One who had ... stripes ... across His back."

Just a bit of lame superhero whimsy - having 'stripes across his back' brought a zebra to mind.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He said what he was prompted to say.

Mention Mohammad or Allah or Ahura Mazda, and I'd hardly gotten a "meh."

Mention Jesus Christ though, and Satan sends his spokespersons all over it.

I think a 'whooosh!' is in order - your mention of 'one with stripes across his back' brought up the image of a zebra; a reminder that earnest Christian euphemisms don't always evoke their intended meaning.

Jesus was probably a lovely bloke who bought his mother flowers and stuff

 

[Sanoy]

Trust me i fully regret it. One of these threads has 180 replies [about half mine] and was made not long before this one. I am outnumbered 20 to 1 [this is what i am use to and enjoy] and very busy. This is just my second time being on a christian forum where their is some friendlies in the area lol. The other a catholic forum not well visited.

That's tough. It bothers me that no one ever realizes that having 20 people join against one poster each with rebuttals that scrutinize each word of the poster with 20x20 line by line rebuttals is epistemically unuseful. I have even witnessed a 36 line by line rebuttal/stream of consciousness before. This forum is pretty good for being even sided and not too many gish/herring rebuttals.

I hope you'll stick around, I think you add useful content to the young earth side. I'm a non young earth creationist, but I'm not idealogical about it. You said earlier that the conflict and challenge is useful epistemically, and I think that's very true.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Throwing in the radioactive decay stuff is a distraction.

The twin who travels close to the speed of light and returns ages less. That extends to both radioctive decay and the addition of wrinkles on the skin and the accumulation of years of memories.

The twin who travels, if he has a bit of uranium ore on his person during his travels, could test it and find it aged exactly the same as himself. The twin who stays at home on earth can test a bit of uranium ore he kept around and find it aged, as well, exactly as himself.

But not at the same rate it aged “before” acceleration began. Nor is he now aging at the same rate as before he reached whatever velocity you want him to be traveling at. You seem to comprehend just fine the twin ages less due to his velocity. But you are ignoring the fact that he therefore aged faster “before” his trip began......

You seem to be seeking to find a way for earth's radioactive ores to have a much longer time span than the earth's inhabitants. You're not going to find that. The ores on earth and the residents on earth have all been experiencing the same motion together all this time.

And just like the twin who now ages slower than he once did, so everything on earth, the entire solar system and the galaxy itself is aging slower than it once did due to its increase in velocity.

So the earth has experienced billions of years of history. It's recorded in the ores. It's recorded in the development of life.

No, the earth has experienced billions of years worth of decay, not billions of years worth of Today’s time. Like the twin who ages less which means he once aged faster. You can’t age less if you did not age faster.

So like the twin your conception about the reality is flawed. We are not arguing about how fast the twin ages now, but how fast he aged “before” he began his trip......

You admit he ages slower. Are you denying he therefore aged faster in the past?

If the entire universe is continuing to “increase” in acceleration, then clocks are continuing to slow even as we speak. So that today the radioactive decay rate is not the same as it was yesterday and will not be the same as it is tomorrow.

You simply can not see your clocks changing from within your own frame, because you continuously call different duration ticks of time seconds, even if not the same duration as what was a second before.

As I said, you will argue this is a privileged reference frame and not even know you are doing it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the entire universe is continuing to “increase” in acceleration, then clocks are continuing to slow even as we speak. So that today the radioactive decay rate is not the same as it was yesterday and will not be the same as it is tomorrow.

You simply can not see your clocks changing from within your own frame, because you continuously call different duration ticks of time seconds, even if not the same duration as what was a second before.

If the same temporal effect occurs everywhere, e.g. all clocks run faster/slower, then it makes no difference, and, arguably, is meaningless. Time is only meaningfully faster or slower relative to some other comparable frame of reference.

In cosmological terms, we can see the Doppler time dilation of galaxies moving away from us and compare the rate of time we observe here with the rate we observe there (and they can look at us and see exactly the same effect).

In terms of the ageing of bodies within the reference frame of, for example, the solar system (or the galaxy), local ('proper') time is well-defined as a reference against which frames in relative motion are compared. Proper time is the time in the frame in which the objects of interest are at rest. So to say that the proper time can vary with respect to the contents of that frame is meaningless.

Also, since the accelerating expansion of the universe is due to a scalar change in the metric (i.e. space itself is expanding), galaxies are not accelerating through space, so they maintain their inertial frames and there is no observable relativistic time dilation, only Doppler time dilation.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Sorry Guys I will respond. I have bitten off a bigger bite than i can chew. I am on multiple forums with multiple threads and one especially is taking up much time. I had to drop a thread and this was it as this was my last joined forum. I should be back in a day or two, sorry. Maybe even tonight we shall see.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thankfully this is just a random internet forum and few people probably care much about the discussions.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . If on the other hand one uses Hubble's law (which all do) then it requires the direct correlation of recessional velocity with redshift to calculate distances. Leading to a faster than light distance.

Only if one neglects to note that, approaching the speed of light, the slowing of time also contributes to red shifting. Hence red shifting can grow without limit but nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

But you are totally incorrect. Being you don't understand why light remains c regardless of velocity I understand your mistakes.

Actually I understand that to be the case.

With time dilation and length contraction corrections applied, the distance would be shorter and the time would be shorter as well. Remember, you are measuring a longer distance (shorter ruler) in a longer amount of time (slower clock). With the corrections applied the distance would be shorter (corrected larger ruler) in a shorter amount of time (corrected faster clock). Remember, the time is faster when corrected because the ruler is longer. It now takes less time to travel a shorter distance because the ruler is longer, so the distance is shorter. Just as it now seems to take more time to cover a longer distance because your ruler is shorter while your time is longer. Now you see 4 light years from point A to B. If you accelerate you see a larger distance (shorter ruler) not a shorter distance. This is where the deception comes into play. They want you to believe that as you approach the speed of light the distance between A and B decreases (because they refuse to shrink the ruler according to experimental data). Yet if this was true, then light which is traveling at c would have space contracting the distances, not spacetime expanding the distances. At the very minimum the two would offset and no redshift would be observable. Either space contracts as one approaches c, or it is expanding. To imply both is pseudoscience. Or your ruler is simply shorter and your clock tick longer according to experimental data.

Uh . . . that's not very well expressed.

Let's suppose you undertake a journey to a star 10 light years away, and you travel at 87 percent of the speed of light. That is the speed at which time is slowed by 1/2 and distances are shrunk by 1/2. Back on earth we calculate it will take you 11 and a half years to get there, and we calculate you will experience a time of only half that on your journey.

In the spaceship, you assert the universe moving in relation to yourself, and the universe is experiencing a time contraction instead.

How much time will you believe it takes you to arrive at the star, in light of the fact that you understand the universe to have slowed time, not yourself?

You will observe just under 6 years of time . . . 1/2 of the 11 and a half years. You will explain this as having happened because of the space contraction of the distance from earth to the formerly 10 light year distant star (only 5 light years distant while you are in transit).

Nobody disagrees as to what happens when the journey is ended; everybody agrees what the clocks in your ship have measured. It's just a matter of disagreeing about why (time dilation or space contraction?)

In the same way the facts of our universe are not in dispute, the ways we understand them to explain them can vary.

And btw, for the upteenth million time, I am not arguing for a YEC viewpoint. I don't care if you want the earth to be 50 billion years old. I am arguing your dating of man is what is flawed (along with the total age of the earth), but that is irrelevant, since there have been 6 creations and 5 destruction's. I am not interested in your argument's against YEC in the slightest, because the earth isn't young, just man....

Sorry, I haven't really paid much attention to the varieties of science denials out there, they kind of blur in the perception. You have to somehow find fault with the date determinations for habitations of mankind. What's your favorite trick for doing that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If the same temporal effect occurs everywhere, e.g. all clocks run faster/slower, then it makes no difference, and, arguably, is meaningless. Time is only meaningfully faster or slower relative to some other comparable frame of reference.

Yet that’s why you ignore the facts. As I showed earlier. If you start with 100 units and it decays 2 units per year and then 10 years later accelerate, you used 20 units in 10 years of time. If then because of your increase in velocity it now decays at 1 unit per year and after 10 years you take a measurement, that is 10 units.

So you measure 30 units of decay, but it happened in 20 units of time. Not 30 units of time based upon the flawed belief it was always the same.

The twin can pretend like you he’s not aging slower, but relativity tells the lie to that belief. He’s aging slower weather he chooses to recognize it or not. Reality never changes, just your perception of what is reality. The twin ages slower regardless if he thinks he does or not, or even if he is totally unaware of it.

Again, we are not concerned with the rate decay happens now, but how it once did. Without factoring in the increased decay rate in the past, all your answers are flawed, as the math clearly shows, regardless that cognitive dissonance blinds you to it.

And they don't all run the same everywhere. As Einstein told you only when a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.

Only when systems moving with the same approximate velocity is time close to being the same.

He also told you that The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration. In a curved spacetime all frames are non-inertial. Gravity produces the same effect as acceleration.

In cosmological terms, we can see the Doppler time dilation of galaxies moving away from us and compare the rate of time we observe here with the rate we observe there (and they can look at us and see exactly the same effect).

Please, light travels at c regardless of the frame of reference. The twin in motion sees light travel at c just like the stationary frame. And he still aged slower. Your reasoning is flawed. Both twins see the same thing but neither of their time runs the same. Even Einstein admitted the futility of trying to sync clocks at distance.

You simply have no logical reason why light travels at c because they don't have one. Perhaps one day I will explain to you why light always travels at c regardless of velocity. Hint, its the same reason constants stay constant despite using longer or shorter ticks of time and rulers to measure them....

In terms of the ageing of bodies within the reference frame of, for example, the solar system (or the galaxy), local ('proper') time is well-defined as a reference against which frames in relative motion are compared. Proper time is the time in the frame in which the objects of interest are at rest. So to say that the proper time can vary with respect to the contents of that frame is meaningless.

You aren’t at rest despite every device saying you are. The objects of interest aren’t at rest either. In fact, no object can detect its own motion from inside its coordinate frame.

So let’s see, the GPS which is part of the galaxies local frame just as we are, has clocks which run at a different rate than ours. Your beliefs don’t seem to match reality.

Also, since the accelerating expansion of the universe is due to a scalar change in the metric (i.e. space itself is expanding), galaxies are not accelerating through space, so they maintain their inertial frames and there is no observable relativistic time dilation, only Doppler time dilation.

Yah, I was wondering when you would get to Fairie Dust to try to ignore observations. If redshift is due to the expansion of space and not recessional velocity, then Hubble’s law is useless and can’t be used to judge distance. But distance is based on Hubble’s law and the correlation between recessional velocity and distance.

If we were to divide a river up so it flowed in two directions or all, even though two ships would have no motion with respect to the water itself, they would still be accelerating away from one another and the energy of the river would be imparted to them.

But it’s the flawed belief in what redshift actually is that leads them to propose the magical expansion of nothing......

And if the scale of space is changing, then you doubly can not measure distance. You have nothing to verify any distance redshift relation to any magical expansion. Only recessional velocity as is proven in the laboratory unlike claims of Fairie Dust.

That’s why you must constantly switch back and forth between recessional velocity and expansion, else the absurdity would be apparent to everyone.

 

[Astrophile]

I have to ask, out of curiosity. Are you from the UK? Or are you just by chance familiar with geologic history or various countries?

Thank-you for your question. I am English, and I have travelled around Britain and seen some of its interesting geological features.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet that’s why you ignore the facts. As I showed earlier. If you start with 100 units and it decays 2 units per year and then 10 years later accelerate, you used 20 units in 10 years of time. If then because of your increase in velocity it now decays at 1 unit per year and after 10 years you take a measurement, that is 10 units.

So you measure 30 units of decay, but it happened in 20 units of time. Not 30 units of time based upon the flawed belief it was always the same.

It happens in 20 units of time relative only to the rest frame from which you started. Relative to all other frames, including your own, it takes a different number of units (30 for your own frame). The frame from which you started is just one of an infinite number of equally valid frames; it's useful if you want to compare aging with someone who remained in that frame, but isn't special in any other way.

The twin can pretend like you he’s not aging slower, but relativity tells the lie to that belief. He’s aging slower weather he chooses to recognize it or not. Reality never changes, just your perception of what is reality. The twin ages slower regardless if he thinks he does or not, or even if he is totally unaware of it.

He only ages slower relative to frames that have not accelerated (changed inertial frames) to the extent he has. If each twin had undergone the same pattern of acceleration, but in opposite directions away from, then back to, Earth, they would both have aged the same, and both have aged less than those who remained on Earth.

Again, we are not concerned with the rate decay happens now, but how it once did. Without factoring in the increased decay rate in the past, all your answers are flawed, as the math clearly shows, regardless that cognitive dissonance blinds you to it.

The decay rate in the past is only relevant or meaningful we have some other significantly different frame of reference with which to compare. So what other frame do you think we should be comparing with to judge whether time ran faster or slower on Earth in the past? and how fast do you think it would need to be moving relative to Earth to see time on Earth running sufficiently slowly to satisfy your requirements? and why do you think we should take that frame as being relevant or interesting?

Please, light travels at c regardless of the frame of reference. The twin in motion sees light travel at c just like the stationary frame. And he still aged slower. Your reasoning is flawed. Both twins see the same thing but neither of their time runs the same. Even Einstein admitted the futility of trying to sync clocks at distance.

You simply have no logical reason why light travels at c because they don't have one. Perhaps one day I will explain to you why light always travels at c regardless of velocity. Hint, its the same reason constants stay constant despite using longer or shorter ticks of time and rulers to measure them....

I never mentioned light; you're waffling.

You aren’t at rest despite every device saying you are. The objects of interest aren’t at rest either.

Try to focus - you are at rest in your own reference frame; proper time for you is the time in that frame.

In fact, no object can detect its own motion from inside its coordinate frame.

See immediately above; an object is always at rest within its coordinate frame. It can detect its own motion relative to any other object in any other frame just by looking at it.

So let’s see, the GPS which is part of the galaxies local frame just as we are, has clocks which run at a different rate than ours. Your beliefs don’t seem to match reality.

The difference in GPS rate is due to small local variations within the galactic reference frame - they tick more slowly because they're moving at orbital speeds relative to the surface of the Earth, and they tick faster because they're higher in its gravitational field. The latter outweighs the former by ~38 ms/day so the clocks are adjusted to run slow before they're launched. So the true GPS clock rate is due to gravitational frequency shift, it's irrelevant here.

Yah, I was wondering when you would get to Fairie Dust to try to ignore observations. If redshift is due to the expansion of space and not recessional velocity, then Hubble’s law is useless and can’t be used to judge distance. But distance is based on Hubble’s law and the correlation between recessional velocity and distance.

The expansion of space is the reason for the recessional velocity. No Fairie Dust necessary.

If we were to divide a river up so it flowed in two directions or all, even though two ships would have no motion with respect to the water itself, they would still be accelerating away from one another and the energy of the river would be imparted to them.

Sure, but the river carrying the boats is moving through space, just as you are when you're a passenger in a train. The observed expansion of the universe is uniformly accelerating in all directions. The implication should be obvious.

And if the scale of space is changing, then you doubly can not measure distance.

It doesn't mean everything is expanding, only intergalactic space (and even there, the gravitational attraction of clusters & superclusters tends to resist it). Even the weakest of forces, gravity, is enough to resist the expansion for these. We measure distance in terms of our local rulers and adjust according to what we know about the relative motion of the objects we're measuring.

That’s why you must constantly switch back and forth between recessional velocity and expansion, else the absurdity would be apparent to everyone.

As above, recessional velocity is the result of expansion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It happens in 20 units of time relative only to the rest frame from which you started. Relative to all other frames, including your own, it takes a different number of units (30 for your own frame). The frame from which you started is just one of an infinite number of equally valid frames; it's useful if you want to compare aging with someone who remained in that frame, but isn't special in any other way.

It's absolutely required to calculate the true age of the radioactive sample we just accelerated. 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....

He only ages slower relative to frames that have not accelerated (changed inertial frames) to the extent he has. If each twin had undergone the same pattern of acceleration, but in opposite directions away from, then back to, Earth, they would both have aged the same, and both have aged less than those who remained on Earth.

Which shows you that the one undergoing acceleration ages less. If both ships remained stationary and the earth accelerated away, those on earth would age less then they once did. Oh, wait, the earth did just that as the universe expanded....

The decay rate in the past is only relevant or meaningful we have some other significantly different frame of reference with which to compare. So what other frame do you think we should be comparing with to judge whether time ran faster or slower on Earth in the past? and how fast do you think it would need to be moving relative to Earth to see time on Earth running sufficiently slowly to satisfy your requirements? and why do you think we should take that frame as being relevant or interesting?

You don't need any other frame to compare it to. You ALREADY KNOW accelerating frames age less. Why the cop out to deny what you already know to be true?

I never mentioned light; you're waffling.

No, you are, else if you never saw light, you never took a single measurement. It's implicit or else nothing at distance would be measured.......

Try to focus - you are at rest in your own reference frame; proper time for you is the time in that frame.

Agreed, stay focused; proper time is changing as we speak...

See immediately above; an object is always at rest within its coordinate frame. It can detect its own motion relative to any other object in any other frame just by looking at it.

No it can't. According to the frame doing the observation it is the other object in motion.

The difference in GPS rate is due to small local variations within the galactic reference frame - they tick more slowly because they're moving at orbital speeds relative to the surface of the Earth, and they tick faster because they're higher in its gravitational field. The latter outweighs the former by ~38 ms/day so the clocks are adjusted to run slow before they're launched. So the true GPS clock rate is due to gravitational frequency shift, it's irrelevant here.

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.....

"Einstein's ground-breaking realization (which he called “the happiest thought of my life”) was that gravity is in reality not a force at all, but is indistinguishable from, and in fact the same thing as, acceleration, an idea he called the “principle of equivalence”."
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_gravity.html

You know, less gravitational potential, less acceleration, faster clocks. More gravitational potential, more acceleration, slower clocks.

What, didn't recognize your own theory in there? I'm supposed to trust you when you try to argue gravity isn't relevant in a discussion of acceleration and GPS when they are the same thing? I'd say it shows how flawed your other thoughts are.

The expansion of space is the reason for the recessional velocity. No Fairie Dust necessary.

The expansion of space is the Fairie Dust.

Sure, but the river carrying the boats is moving through space, just as you are when you're a passenger in a train. The observed expansion of the universe is uniformly accelerating in all directions. The implication should be obvious.

You have demonstrated no expansion of anything, just a misinterpretation of what redshift was.

Redshift was recessional velocity until technology advanced and falsified that belief as the z-values continued to grow. But they didnt want their theory falsified as it was the only indicator they had of distance. So the expanded nothing instead.

It doesn't mean everything is expanding, only intergalactic space (and even there, the gravitational attraction of clusters & superclusters tends to resist it). Even the weakest of forces, gravity, is enough to resist the expansion for these. We measure distance in terms of our local rulers and adjust according to what we know about the relative motion of the objects we're measuring.

As above, recessional velocity is the result of expansion.

Of course everything IS expanding. If on one of those redshifted galaxies our galaxy would be highly redshifted and so it would be our galaxy undergoing space expansion. Or don't you believe in the principle of equivalence anymore? No, expansion is Fairie Dust. The redshift is caused by light interacting with particles in space.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

Convenient it only expands where it can never be tested.....

Gravity is virtually non-existent and has nothing to do with galaxies.

Let's get the facts correct. GR is 99.9% correct in describing the motions of the planets without ant Fairie Dust at all. But the very second you attempt to use it outside the solar system it suddenly become 96% incorrect. Einstein tried to tell them he wasn't ready yet to apply it to the rest of the universe, but people decided they knew better than him and look where it got them 96% Fairie Dust because when they applied it they got the wrong answers and didn't use the correct physics for what makes up 99.9% of the universe.

But your local ruler is continuing to shrink.....

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's absolutely required to calculate the true age of the radioactive sample we just accelerated. It isn't 30 units of time old, but only 20.. . . . . .

Is this all some elaborate attempt to assert that even if a rock shows the uranium in it has endured a million years, the rock hasn't endured a million years?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is this all some elaborate attempt to assert that even if a rock shows the uranium in it has endured a million years, the rock hasn't endured a million years?

It hasn't. Scientific fact of time dilation. They simply date it older than it is because they do not account for time dilation.

 

[plugh]

It hasn't. Scientific fact of time dilation. They simply date it older than it is because they do not account for time dilation.

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It hasn't. Scientific fact of time dilation. They simply date it older than it is because they do not account for time dilation.

This is weird. You have the rock aging because it shows the radioactive decay and you claim it also didn't age because to some far distant galaxy it was moving fast enough to retard time. But the far distant galaxy doesn't observe our present day galaxy and its observations of us don't count. If it sees our galaxy at all it sees it at a time before earth existed. Light travel time, you know. I'm assuming you speak of a galaxy far enough away that it moves at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

The amount of decay stands as time experienced by the earth rock. Your verbal tricks don't change that.

 

[Jack Slatts]

Dinosaur Blood Vessels

“Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.” "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
-Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.

Well, this one is easy to debunk. Mary Schweitzer herself has debunked it (That's her being quoted). Google Paulogia and Schweitzer, and listen to her.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, this one is easy to debunk. Mary Schweitzer herself has debunked it (That's her being quoted). Google Paulogia and Schweitzer, and listen to her.

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.