"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

dad · Jun 25, 2015

RickG said:
And that distance verify's time.

Yup! Just like gravity. Just a theory. I'm not going to go through it because I know you have been explained the difference between general layman's theory and a scientific theory a gizillion times. If you wish to play ignorant to what a scientific theory is and describes, that's your problem.

Not quite. Gravity is here, and an apple falling on your head is a far cry from being at a star.

An understanding of basic spectroscopy would go a long way in helping you understand that you struck out with a straight pitch and curve ball. Simply put, specific light waves of the electromagnetic spectrum are absorbed at specific wave-lengths, which identifies the specific isotope, molecule, or compound. In the case of the SN1987A, it was the gamma-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that was being observed. What was measured were individual isotopes and their concentration with respect to time and distance which reveals their lifetime (decay rate). I utilized the same process as a professional chemist for over 25 years. The only difference being that the part of the electromagnetic spectrum I utilized in measurements was between the infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths, rather than the gamma-ray portion, what I was measuring. The chemistry and physics are the same.

Here's the thing...

The star may not be in time, and then things change. If God wants it to get rays and light to earth, well then I assume it starts to exist in time. Yes there will be nickel and whatever else is in there in decay, since it is now here.

If we look at this pic, we see that the pattern of decay starts at a certain point...not at the beginning of the event!

Rather than use the theory of nuclersynthesis and etc to explain how it got started, we could perhaps envision a point where the star started to exist in time. We could call that 'Time Translation' The time translation point would be, if that was correct, the point at which the star started to exist in time. That means that distance is unknown and size!!!! You just assumed that the decay and stuff we see meant that time was there all the way, and that your earth based physical only theories had to apply.

Again, I think we must say you do not know after all.

RickG · Jun 25, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
What will experts do when they find even bigger objects and older in the distant regions of the universe? Will they keep adjusting the age of every older object they find to the age of the BB?

Still didn't read your own link? They didn't adjust the age to fit the BB, they corrected their error in dating the object from an earth based telescope back in 2000. The new data was obtained from the Hubble Space Telescope in 2013.

See Nic, this is an example that I have previously described to you concerning the "creation science" literature; they employ "intellectual dishonesty" knowing their targeted audience will never fact check their information. After all, who is going to question a religious based source telling them what they want to hear, especially when almost all that audience doesn't have the background nor the experience to know how to fact check.

This is not the first time I have seen this accusation. You obtained this information from a "creation science" source. The source did provide legitimate links to the story. However, what the creation science source did was only describe the early error without mentioning the later data obtained from more advanced and precise instrumentation that put the star within the age of the BB. The "creation science" literature is drenched in examples of this type. Why do those people/organizations do this? How long has this been going on? Did the people who compiled the bible deciding what was going to be included or excluded do this? Did the people who wrote scripture do this, revealing only what they wanted their audience to know?

RickG · Jun 25, 2015

dad said:
Not quite. Gravity is here, and an apple falling on your head is a far cry from being at a star.

What you are ignoring is that both are observable and measurable.

Here's the thing...

The star may not be in time, and then things change. If God wants it to get rays and light to earth, well then I assume it starts to exist in time. Yes there will be nickel and whatever else is in there in decay, since it is now here.

In other words, deny what we know and make up what you would like it to be because what God provided for us to observe and understand doesn't fit your biblical interpretation.

If we look at this pic, we see that the pattern of decay starts at a certain point...not at the beginning of the event!

And the explanation and description of that process is given on page 2 of the paper.

Rather than use the theory of nuclersynthesis and etc to explain how it got started, we could perhaps envision a point where the star started to exist in time. We could call that 'Time Translation' The time translation point would be, if that was correct, the point at which the star started to exist in time. That means that distance is unknown and size!!!! You just assumed that the decay and stuff we see meant that time was there all the way, and that your earth based physical only theories had to apply.

So you wish to ignore what was physically observed and measured and envision something else originating as a figment of your imagination. And again, your treatment of what a "scientific theory" actually is and describes is appalling. What you are implying is "theoretical physics" which is quite different from what is described in the paper which is "experimental physics". Huge difference chief.

Split Rock · Jun 25, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
I have concluded that your alleged concern for the children and the unborn is merely a sham. If you were truly interested in them, you would not criticize a man who has devoted a couple of decades on behalf of the pro-life ad honorem—without any compensation.

I am not criticizing you, I am criticizing your argument. Please concentrate on the point I am trying to make, rather than getting defensive that I am disagreeing with you. You do realize that this is a Discussion Forum... do you not?

Split Rock · Jun 25, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
I did! Should I post it again?

Yes, please do so. If you recall, the name of Darwin's book was , "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," not "On the Origin of Life."

Loudmouth · Jun 25, 2015

dad said:
False. No more than a quill wrote it.

You are thinking of Muslims who believe that Allah dictated the Koran.

Loudmouth · Jun 25, 2015

Split Rock said:
Yes, please do so. If you recall, the name of Darwin's book was , "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," not "On the Origin of Life."

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Darwin was just fine with a divine origin of life, and even an origin of life that involved more than one form. He also describes evolution as being independent of the origin of life.

From the very start, evolution and abiogenesis were two different theories, yet creationists continue to try and conflate the two.

dad · Jun 25, 2015

RickG said:
What you are ignoring is that both are observable and measurable.

Too bad it isn't postable! No idea what you are even talking about. You think you measure nuclear synthesis in stars? Heck, seems to me that with sn1987a you claimed that was not the sort of star or explosion we would expect! Then they scramble after the fact with computer models to cook up an explanation!

I already explained how the decay should be observed and no one but you is ignoring anything!

In other words, deny what we know and make up what you would like it to be because what God provided for us to observe and understand doesn't fit your biblical interpretation.

Try offering something we can deny...or accept...or read!

And the explanation and description of that process is given on page 2 of the paper.

Say it in your own words. It can't be supported. This is in page one, section 2 of my post.

So you wish to ignore what was physically observed and measured and envision something else originating as a figment of your imagination.

What insane claims. What is to ignore? Your theory of stellar nuclear synthesis? Or..?

And again, your treatment of what a "scientific theory" actually is and describes is appalling. What you are implying is "theoretical physics" which is quite different from what is described in the paper which is "experimental physics". Huge difference chief.

Well, if it talks of labs ON earth, great. If you are talking stars...show the specs man.

dad · Jun 25, 2015

RickG said:
And the explanation and description of that process is given on page 2 of the paper.

..

Balony!
Here is the relevant bit from page 2 (if you think there is something else important on page two feel free to post it)

"
Gamma-ray lines from radioactivities demand several conditions to be observable. First, a hot and dense medium with sufficiently low entropy is required to allow for the synthesis of fresh radioisotopes. Such a medium can be found
in stellar interiors, at the base of the accreted envelope of white dwarfs in close binary systems, or even in accretion disks around compact objects. The nuclear reaction networks in operation are characteristic for the composition,
density, and temperature at the burning site, hence the observation of isotopic abundance patterns provide direct insight into the nucleosynthesis conditions.
Second, the fresh radioisotopes have to be removed quickly from the formation site to prevent destruction by nuclear reactions or natural decay. This generally implies convection followed by mass ejection, either in form of stel-
lar winds or explosions, and requires lifetimes of at least several days, better several months. Additionally, nucleosynthesis sites are generally optical thick to gamma-rays, hence escape of the radioisotopes to optical
ly thin regions is mandatory for gamma-ray line observations. Consequently, radioisotopes can probe stellar convection and ejection processes, providing important information about the involved stellar physics. Third, the lifetime has to be short enough and the abundance of the isotope has to be high enough to assure a sufficient radioactive decay activity that is in reach of modern gamma-ray telescopes"

Tell us how it can be observed or found in stellar interiors? The crux of the matter is not after the fact of the event..such as after ejection..etc!! That may be like saying 'after the time translation event! That doesn't matter here!

Well well, guess who's on the defense now!?

dad · Jun 25, 2015

Loudmouth said:
You are thinking of Muslims who believe that Allah dictated the Koran.

No. We know that a spirit was involved that claimed to be Gabriel but was in fact not Gabriel of the bible. So I don't doubt that that evil lying spirit dictated stuff!

Nic Samojluk · Jun 25, 2015

bhsmte said:
Go ahead.

Science claims that a singularity is responsible for the BB. A singularity is something science has no way of dealing with because it cannot be accounted for by the laws of physics.

This is the way science deals with mysteries. Scientists reject the creation mystery and end with a singularity mystery. Since science cannot overcome the idea of mystery when dealing with the origin of the universe and life, then it should not put down Christians who accept the biblical mystery.

The Bible tells me that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Science rejects this and says: “In the beginning the BB preceded by a singularity.”

What I meant to say with my posting was that God is older than the universe, because he is the one who designed and created it.

Religion is no more a science stopper than science. Both stop at the beginning.

bhsmte · Jun 25, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Science claims that a singularity is responsible for the BB. A singularity is something science has no way of dealing with because it cannot be accounted for by the laws of physics.

This is the way science deals with mysteries. Scientists reject the creation mystery and end with a singularity mystery. Since science cannot overcome the idea of mystery when dealing with the origin of the universe and life, then it should not put down Christians who accept the biblical mystery.

The Bible tells me that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Science rejects this and says: “In the beginning the BB preceded by a singularity.”

What I meant to say with my posting was that God is older than the universe, because he is the one who designed and created it.

Religion is no more a science stopper than science. Both stop at the beginning.

This is what you were asked:

Then show us all, how evolution discusses the origin of life in it's theory and why the theory is dependent on how the origin of life came to be.

And be specific please.

What you just typed, does not address what you were asked and has absolutely ZERO to do with evolution.

Loudmouth · Jun 25, 2015

dad said:
No. We know that a spirit was involved that claimed to be Gabriel but was in fact not Gabriel of the bible. So I don't doubt that that evil lying spirit dictated stuff!

You "know"? Please, present this evidence.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 25, 2015

RickG said:
This is not the first time I have seen this accusation. You obtained this information from a "creation science" source.

Wrong! I did not consult anybody for my response, and you have already accused me of being dishonest. It is evident that you were quick to rush to judgment!

Loudmouth · Jun 25, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Science claims that a singularity is responsible for the BB. A singularity is something science has no way of dealing with because it cannot be accounted for by the laws of physics.

At one time, the laws that science understood could not deal with the orbit of Mercury. That doesn't mean that the orbit of Mercury was guided by deities.

This is the way science deals with mysteries. Scientists reject the creation mystery and end with a singularity mystery. Since science cannot overcome the idea of mystery when dealing with the origin of the universe and life, then it should not put down Christians who accept the biblical mystery.

There is no evidence for creationism to reject.

The Bible tells me that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WANT SCIENCE TO CONSIDER?

What I meant to say with my posting was that God is older than the universe, because he is the one who designed and created it.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Religion is no more a science stopper than science. Both stop at the beginning.

Science starts with evidence. Have any?

Nic Samojluk · Jun 25, 2015

RickG said:
How long has this been going on?

I will give you another reason I believe the universe is much older that the age assigned to the BB.

You seem to be focused on the observable universe, while I have the entire universe in mind. Our universe is not limited to what we can observe with the telescopes we have today.

The universe cannot be younger than the oldest objects in existence, and said oldest object could be outside the observable universe. Sooner or later the experts will be able to discover older objects we have not seen before. Then we will be forced to make an adjustment to the age of the BB. Tell me why my reasoning is wrong!

“How did scientists determine how many candles to put on the universe's birthday cake? They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding. …”

Ref.: http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Nic Samojluk · Jun 25, 2015

Split Rock said:
I am not criticizing you, I am criticizing your argument.

My argument? Let me review: I was not the one who asked God for a miracle. It was my wife, and she was ill and was desperate to get home. And you and others concluded that it would have been wrong for God to help me and my wife to get home because there are thousands of children who are dying in Africa.

I had been doing the Lord’s work on behalf of the unborn children for two decades without any compensation and loosing thousands of dollars for giving priority to pro-life activities instead of my real estate business, and you people decided to criticize me for giving credit to God for a token favor in light of our sacrifice for the sake of the unborn.

You erroneously concluded that God was giving preference to my car over the life of African children. This is an example of how a wrong ideology can lead people to be unfair to innocent individuals.

Doveaman · Jun 25, 2015

Loudmouth said:
99.999% of physicists agree with me.

99.999% of theoretical physicists agree with you on space-expansion redshift.

99.999% of plasma physicists disagree with you on plasma redshift.

Loudmouth · Jun 25, 2015

Doveaman said:
99.999% of plasma physicists disagree with you about plasma redshift.

99.999% of physicists who work with plasma agree that inelastic scattering is a wavelength dependent mechanism unlike cosmological redshift which is wavelength independent.

RickG · Jun 25, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Wrong! I did not consult anybody for my response, and you have already accused me of being dishonest. It is evident that you were quick to rush to judgment!

If you did not source the idea from the creation science literature I apologize. However, your stating that scientists have found a star older than the BB and linking a NASA news release on it that explains the age error, why it occurred, and how it was corrected, does make your source suspect; especially with your comment suggesting that scientists will continue to adjust the age of any object found to be older. And I didn't accuse you of being dishonest. I accused the creation science literature of "intellectual dishonesty" and described how it was done.

"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Contributor

Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency