In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Hammster]

It accounts for what it can observe. It is science, not religion of philosophy. Not being able to observe something does not make it myopic.

What's the earliest thing science has observed? How far back, roughly?

 

[RickG]

What's the earliest thing science has observed? How far back, roughly?

That would involve astronomy which is not my field of expertise. Let's stick to earth science and the topic of the thread. The oldest of earth origin would be a zircon dating 4.404 ± 0.008 Ga.

Source(s): Simon A. Wilde, et al.: Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago, Nature Geoscience, 2001

Wilde, S. A., J. W. Valley, W. H. Peck and C. M. Graham (2001) Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago. Nature, v. 409, pp. 175-178

 

[Hammster]

That would involve astronomy which is not my field of expertise. Let's stick to earth science and the topic of the thread. The oldest of earth origin would be a zircon dating 4.404 ± 0.008 Ga.

Source(s): Simon A. Wilde, et al.: Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago, Nature Geoscience, 2001

Wilde, S. A., J. W. Valley, W. H. Peck and C. M. Graham (2001) Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago. Nature, v. 409, pp. 175-178

That wasn't observed.

 

[RickG]

That wasn't observed.

The Ken Ham idea asking "were you there" is a ridiculous assertion. By that reasoning, Jesus did not exist because there are no contemporary accounts of him.

 

[Hammster]

The Ken Ham idea asking "were you there" is a ridiculous assertion. By that reasoning, Jesus did not exist because there are no contemporary accounts of him.

You're the one that said science accounts for what it can observe, then you posted something that wasn't observed. So I don't understand the snarky response.

 

[RickG]

You're the one that said science accounts for what it can observe, then you posted something that wasn't observed. So I don't understand the snarky response.

The zircons are real and in the possession of the scientists who described their location, occurrence, the geology of the area and the processes in which they were tested. The fact that modern science can perform specific tests that date those zircons does not require the presence of someone being there 4.4 Ga. Those are direct observations. My response was not snarky, it demonstrated a relationship that you invoked, it was not observed.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're the one that said science accounts for what it can observe, then you posted something that wasn't observed. So I don't understand the snarky response.

Aren't creation vs. evolution debates so mind-numbing wonderful!?

 

[Hammster]

The zircons are real and in the possession of the scientists who described their location, occurrence, the geology of the area and the processes in which they were tested. The fact that modern science can perform specific tests that date those zircons does not require the presence of someone being there 4.4 Ga. Those are direct observations. My response was not snarky, it demonstrated a relationship that you invoked, it was not observed.

Are there any assumptions, things not observable, that go into coming up with this conclusion?

 

[Hammster]

Aren't creation vs. evolution debates so mind-numbing wonderful!?

Pretty much.

 

[RickG]

Are there any assumptions, things not observable, that go into coming up with this conclusion?

Ah yes, the play on the word assumption. Yes, science contains many assumptions, what is relative is the difference in (your) layman's definitions of assumption and that when applied to scientific research. In scientific research assumptions are based on past experience and testable criteria. Lets look at the radiometric dating method which was used, uranium/lead (U/Pb). What is assumed?

1. The decay rate has remained the same. Why is that assumed? It is assumed because it is a measurable rate that follows the laws of physics and is directly observable and never found to be variable. Tests have also been made exposing isotopes to conditions such as heating, cooling, pressure, chemical reactions, etc., exceeding those that would be encountered in nature. Rates remain the same. Isotopes emitted by gamma rays from supernova millions of light years distant have had their decay rates measured and they are the same as observed on earth today. Thus, decay rates are not an unfounded assumption. They are assumed to remain the same because of the observed data.

2. That there is no contamination. Actually that is never assumed. There are specific tests and criteria for detecting and quantifying any contamination (excess daughter isotope). Furthermore, there are methods of recent development where contamination is irrelevant, Atomic Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA).

 

[Hammster]

Ah yes, the play on the word assumption. Yes, science contains many assumptions, what is relative is the difference in (your) layman's definitions of assumption and that when applied to scientific research. In scientific research assumptions are based on past experience and testable criteria. Lets look at the radiometric dating method which was used, uranium/lead (U/Pb). What is assumed?

1. The decay rate has remained the same. Why is that assumed? It is assumed because it is a measurable rate that follows the laws of physics and is directly observable and never found to be variable. Tests have also been made exposing isotopes to conditions such as heating, cooling, pressure, chemical reactions, etc., exceeding those that would be encountered in nature. Rates remain the same. Isotopes emitted by gamma rays from supernova millions of light years distant have had their decay rates measured and they are the same as observed on earth today. Thus, decay rates are not an unfounded assumption. They are assumed to remain the same because of the observed data.

2. That there is no contamination. Actually that is never assumed. There are specific tests and criteria for detecting and quantifying any contamination (excess daughter isotope). Furthermore, there are methods of recent development where contamination is irrelevant, Atomic Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA).

So was that a yes?

 

[RickG]

So was that a yes?

No, it was an explanation distinguishing and showing the difference between the layman's definition of an assumption and that of the scientific community. Would you mind providing your definition of "assumptions"? Furthermore, if you would take the time to review some "actual" scientific papers where assumptions are mentions, you would find that when an assumption is stated, it is followed by an explanation of the assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not my job to convince others. Even my first post in this thread wasn't meant to convince anyone. It was to demonstrate the fallacy in another member's understanding of Genesis 1.

All that you did was to show that you have a different interpretation. Nothing was done to show the fallacy of another's beliefs. You probably have a very different interpretation of Genesis than I have. If I showed how you were wrong scientifically would that "demonstrate the fallacy in" your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That wasn't observed.

Yes, that is an observation of an old object. People develop a prejudice for what they see with their eyes because the speed of light is so fast that it seems to be instantaneous. Scientists have expanded "observation' beyond what we see with just our eyes.

 

[Hammster]

All that you did was to show that you have a different interpretation. Nothing was done to show the fallacy of another's beliefs. You probably have a very different interpretation of Genesis than I have. If I showed how you were wrong scientifically would that "demonstrate the fallacy in" your beliefs?

The assumption was that there was no light until day four because that's when the Sun was created. I showed that there was light on day one. I didn't know that was in dispute.

 

[Hammster]

No, it was an explanation distinguishing and showing the difference between the layman's definition of an assumption and that of the scientific community. Would you mind providing your definition of "assumptions"? Furthermore, if you would take the time to review some "actual" scientific papers where assumptions are mentions, you would find that when an assumption is stated, it is followed by an explanation of the assumption.

Is it possible that this conclusion is incorrect?

 

[pat34lee]

Why take the Genesis creation account as literal when we know for a fact that there are problems with it geologically, astronomically and biologically (order of events)?

Because we 'know' no such thing. Were you there?
Was any scientist? God was.

 

[pat34lee]

1. The decay rate has remained the same. Why is that assumed? It is assumed because it is a measurable rate that follows the laws of physics and is directly observable and never found to be variable.

That specific isotope has been studied all of what?
20 minutes comparatively to a decay rate in the
billions of years? And yet, the rates of all radioactive
elements have been shown to be variable.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5619954/the-...ive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry

This being true, there is nothing saying that all of
the atomic clocks could not have run faster years
ago, or that everything we know about radiation
today did not work the same in the past.

 

[RickG]

The assumption was that there was no light until day four because that's when the Sun was created. I showed that there was light on day one. I didn't know that was in dispute.

I disagree, you are not considering all the possibilities with respect to what we know today and what the person(s) knew that day. Lets begin with context and translation. When one speaks of light that does not necessarily mean visible light in which one can see. Example, I saw the light; or in light of. And especially, it does not necessarily mean life giving. And how about dividing it into light and darkness? If the light was life giving as in the sun, then why was the sun created? If you are going to be literal, then the sun is only an object to view, it does not cause day and night to happen. Was light the proper word to use in translation, did it have the same meaning then as now? Example, when one say "hey that's really bad", it quite often means good; or "gay" used to mean happy and having fun. Another consideration is that when translations were made they involved the context of the time. That is when practically nothing was known about the physical world.

In earlier posts it was suggested that science is myopic. What I just presented was showing how open and all inclusive science is as opposed to the myopic view that there was life-giving light that on day one.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I just presented was showing how open and all inclusive science is as opposed to the myopic view that there was life-giving light that on day one.

That's like a short-sighted person saying, "I'm not shortsighted. I can read perfectly."