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.
Hubbles Constant, right or wrong, has nothing to do with radiometric dating.That is exactly what happened in the 40's is that Hubble's Constant conflicted with radiometric dating. It turned out that Hubble's constant was in error. The steady state theory has now been discredited.
Your getting it backwards. Radiometric dating was used to help establish the Hubble Constant.Hubbles Constant, right or wrong, has nothing to do with radiometric dating.
Your getting it backwards. Radiometric dating was used to help establish the Hubble Constant.
Hubble calculated a value for H0 of about 500 km. s-1. Mpc-1. (1 Mpc-1 is 1 megaparsec or about 3.26 million light years. Astronomers use the parsec as the unit of distance measure rather than the light year. Details about the parsec can be found in the Year 12 Astrophysics topic). This value results in an age of the Universe of 2 × 109 years, that is 2 billion years.That I am not familiar with. Citation please.
Wonderful, show me the evidence to support your claim.
Do you mean based on Schroeder theory? Here is a link for that: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
You asked me a question and I answered your question.
Hubble calculated a value for H0 of about 500 km. s-1. Mpc-1. (1 Mpc-1 is 1 megaparsec or about 3.26 million light years. Astronomers use the parsec as the unit of distance measure rather than the light year. Details about the parsec can be found in the Year 12 Astrophysics topic). This value results in an age of the Universe of 2 × 109 years, that is 2 billion years.
Even in Hubble's day this age proved problematic as it clashed with radiometric dating values for the age of the Earth that ranged from 3 to 5 billion years and other evidence on the age of stars. Obviously this posed a dilemma - the Universe could not be younger than the stars or planets it contained! The problem was eventually resolved in the 1950s when the recalibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship provided an age for the Universe in the range of 10-20 billion years.
Even today astronomers spend a lot of time trying to determine a more precise and accurate value for H0 and thus also an age for the Universe.
Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.
Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.
Thank you for quoting specifically what I asked for in this thread and ignoring it completely. Is there a dating method you would like to discuss or express concerns about? Discussing the topic of this thread would be much appreciated.scientifically speaking, there is no sense in all those scientific methods of dating since angels of satan could age the dead matter up to billions of years in addition to the fact that they could also materialize many things such as fossils, skeletons, remains, findings, etc.
Blessings
You mean geologic dating method, don't you?Is there a dating method you would like to discuss or express concerns about?
Really? You do not need the Hubble to establish the accuracy of radiometric dating?
You would not even know how old the universe ie matter is, without the Hubble giving you that information.
Your getting it backwards. Radiometric dating was used to help establish the Hubble Constant.
Hubble calculated a value for H0 of about 500 km. s-1. Mpc-1. (1 Mpc-1 is 1 megaparsec or about 3.26 million light years. Astronomers use the parsec as the unit of distance measure rather than the light year. Details about the parsec can be found in the Year 12 Astrophysics topic). This value results in an age of the Universe of 2 × 109 years, that is 2 billion years.
Even in Hubble's day this age proved problematic as it clashed with radiometric dating values for the age of the Earth that ranged from 3 to 5 billion years and other evidence on the age of stars. Obviously this posed a dilemma - the Universe could not be younger than the stars or planets it contained! The problem was eventually resolved in the 1950s when the recalibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship provided an age for the Universe in the range of 10-20 billion years.
Even today astronomers spend a lot of time trying to determine a more precise and accurate value for H0 and thus also an age for the Universe.
I can name that tune in one note: Strawman.Your own reference shows that you are wrong.
I can name that tune in one note: Strawman.
The whole point is that woosh, the whole conversation goes right over their head. Time is relative. That has been proven over and over again. Yet they want to try to prove that time is a constant. This has nothing to do with creationism, it has to do with science and their rejection of science.You mean geologic dating method, don't you?
The whole point is that woosh, the whole conversation goes right over their head. Time is relative. That has been proven over and over again. Yet they want to try to prove that time is a constant.
The whole point is that woosh, the whole conversation goes right over their head. Time is relative. That has been proven over and over again. Yet they want to try to prove that time is a constant. This has nothing to do with creationism, it has to do with science and their rejection of science.
Correct.Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
Correct.
Say you have a structure made of a substance that loses half its height every year due to loss of mass.
The structure is currently eight feet high.
Next year it will be four feet high.
The next year two feet, then one, then gone.
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?