Radioisotope Dating Procedure Unfounded Assumptions

[lasthero]

Yes, the Bible presents these facts clearly. Things on earth were created by The Creator with apparent age.

What you guys keep ignoring is that there's no just age in the Earth - there's history, too. History that doesn't make sense in the universe was just made 6,000 years ago.

Exactly how do you think canyon's form? It's not overnight.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You know this, I assume, because you "know" that the speed of light has remained constant for the past 4.5 billion years.

How do you know that the speed of light was constant for the past 4.5 billion years? Did you observe it during that time? No.

So basically your argument is as follows:

Because the speed of light is constant now, the speed of light was constant in the past.

As you can see, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from the premises. There is a missing premise. The missing premise is:

Unobserved events resemble observed events.

How do you know that unobserved events resemble observed events? If you think about it carefully you will find that the only reason you believe that unobserved events resemble observed events is because that's what you've observed in the past and you assume that unobserved events (which you will observe in the future) will resemble the observed events from the past.

I will share with you two reasons for accepting that the speed of light has remained constant for a very long time.

First line: Consider the equation e=mc^2. Rewrite it as c = square root of (m/e). Now consider a single crystal encased in rock, from way back when the rock and crystal came to be. The crystal had a certain mass, and a certain amount of energy within. The mass has not changed since the rock was made. The energy within has not changed because the crystal is encased in a rock and the energy is therefore unable to go in or out.

Therefore, since e and m have not changed, and c does not change unless they do, c has not changed (c being the speed of light, as you should know).

But of course there is evidence from astronomy. Simple, direct observations of distant galaxies show that the speed of light has not changed significantly since the light left those galaxies, because if it had changed, then the events we observe by that light would be seen to unfold in different time frames, depending on whether or not the light sped up or slowed down. The waxing and waning of supernova is one of those things, the rotation rate of the galaxies themselves is another of them. Those things do not change at all no matter how far the galaxy is observed.

So it is not mere speculation to assert that the speed of light has not changed. A change in the speed of light over time in this universe would be . . . noticed!

 

[Zosimus]

If the speed of light were faster in the past, it would have an affect on just about every known constant in the universe. That is one of the reasons we know the speed of light is a constant, because we would be able to detect the effects of it changing.

What would happen if the speed of light were 10 times faster?

The radiation pressure inside every star would be 100 times higher and most stars would explode. The fine-structure constant would be 10 times higher, so electrons would be held near atomic nuclei with 100 times more energy making organic chemistry driven by solar radiation impossible. Black holes would be 10 times smaller, and although the force of gravity would not change, stars themselves would be smaller, denser and hotter and live much shorter lives I would suspect. As for cosmology, because the universe started out dominated by radiation pressure, with 100 times the pressure, the expansion would have been far faster than it actually was, and very little primordial helium would have been synthesized as the universe rushed through the temperature-density regime where this could have been possible.

SOURCE

"Light Traveled Faster in the Early Universe" -- The Varying Speed of Light Theory (Today's Most Popular)

Your first claim relies on the belief that nuclear fusion happens at the center of stars. There is no reason to believe so.

Your second claim relies on the belief that the fine structure constant is proportional to or controlled by the speed of light. There is no reason to believe so.

Your third claim relies on the belief that black holes exist. There is no reason to believe so.

Your fourth claim relies on the belief that the universe was created by some Big Bang explosion. There is no reason to believe so.

 

[Zosimus]

What you guys keep ignoring is that there's no just age in the Earth - there's history, too. History that doesn't make sense in the universe was just made 6,000 years ago.

Exactly how do you think canyon's form? It's not overnight.

Depends on the canyon.

Caltech Geologist Investigates Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood | Caltech

PASADENA, Calif.—In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake—the reservoir of the Canyon Dam—to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Depends on the canyon.

Caltech Geologist Investigates Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood | Caltech

This news story's inapplicability to the Grand Canyon is shown by two words: Incised Meanders.

At least you're remaining true to form and including geologists on your list of professionals that are too stupid to perform their careers adequately.
It's a good thing that they're not used by energy companies to find oil. Otherwise, the price of gasoline would be even higher. Thank goodness for divining rods!!

 

[Zosimus]

This news story's inapplicability to the Grand Canyon is shown by two words: Incised Meanders.

At least your remaining true to form and including geologists on your list of professionals that are too stupid to perform their careers adequately.
It's a good thing that they're not used by energy companies to find oil. Otherwise, the price of gasoline would be even higher. Thank goodness for divining rods!!

You are the first person in this thread to mention the Grand Canyon. Your argument is a form of the straw man fallacy.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You are the first person in this thread to mention the Grand Canyon. Your argument is a form of the straw man fallacy.

Maybe, maybe not.
Your post was in reply to a post that mentioned the evidence of millions of years of geological change.
The Grand Canyon is one of those pieces of evidence, so I thought that your post was a defense of the possibility that the Grand Canyon was formed in a very short period of time. Your "strawman" comment indicates otherwise.

So, you agree that it took multiple millions of years to form the Grand Canyon or are you going to argue that we have no evidence that erosion rates were the same then as they are today?

 

[Queller]

Yes, the Bible presents these facts clearly. Things on earth were created by The Creator with apparent age.

That makes God a deceiver. Are you OK with that characterization?

 

[Queller]

"Light Traveled Faster in the Early Universe" -- The Varying Speed of Light Theory (Today's Most Popular)

Your first claim relies on the belief that nuclear fusion happens at the center of stars. There is no reason to believe so.

What is your evidence against it?

Your second claim relies on the belief that the fine structure constant is proportional to or controlled by the speed of light. There is no reason to believe so.

What is your evidence against it?

Your third claim relies on the belief that black holes exist. There is no reason to believe so.

What is your evidence against it?

Your fourth claim relies on the belief that the universe was created by some Big Bang explosion. There is no reason to believe so.

What is your evidence against it?

Just saying "there is no reason to believe it is so" is an ignorant argument. There are thousands of pieces of evidence to support every one of the so-called "beliefs" above. Every one of them is a "reason to believe it is so".

 

[Queller]

Depends on the canyon.

Caltech Geologist Investigates Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood | Caltech

The geology of and formations in that canyon do not resemble those of many ancient canyons at all.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Mt. St. Helens canyon as well.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Death (decay) did not begin until Adam separated from God
and choose to go his own way. My conclusion is that time,
as we know it, did not begin until that day.

This clears up all the problems of the 6 day creation week as well
because it did not happen in normal time, as we know it.

Sorry, Adam was able to digest his food, you know.

 

[Zosimus]

Maybe, maybe not.
Your post was in reply to a post that mentioned the evidence of millions of years of geological change.
The Grand Canyon is one of those pieces of evidence, so I thought that your post was a defense of the possibility that the Grand Canyon was formed in a very short period of time. Your "strawman" comment indicates otherwise.

So, you agree that it took multiple millions of years to form the Grand Canyon or are you going to argue that we have no evidence that erosion rates were the same then as they are today?

First of all, the Grand Canyon is a place that is prone to flash flooding. It is possible that some or all of the carving out of said Canyon was produced by a series of flash floods.

https://rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Flash_Floods

"Places [such as] Havasu, National Canyon, and Diamond Creek have experienced major flash flooding. But realize that in the monsoon season, there really is no place safe. Every side canyon in Grand Canyon has experienced many flash floods."

Or do you deny the very possibility that flash floods cause erosion?

 

[DerelictJunction]

First of all, the Grand Canyon is a place that is prone to flash flooding. It is possible that some or all of the carving out of said Canyon was produced by a series of flash floods.

https://rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Flash_Floods

"Places [such as] Havasu, National Canyon, and Diamond Creek have experienced major flash flooding. But realize that in the monsoon season, there really is no place safe. Every side canyon in Grand Canyon has experienced many flash floods."

Or do you deny the very possibility that flash floods cause erosion?

Incised meanders.

 

[Zosimus]

What is your evidence against it?

It's not up to me to make a positive claim for your pet theory and then tear the claim down. There are several reasons this is so.

First of all, the assumption will always be that I have only presented those points that I have a ready answer for. Second, it takes too much time and effort on my part to research possible reasons for your pet theories. Finally, the burden of proof ultimately rests not on me but on you.

However, to be sporting, I will cast doubt on the solar fusion theory briefly.

Point 1: Solar fusion theory predicts that a certain number of solar neutrinos will be produced. To date the right number of solar neutrinos have not been observed. Only half of the predicted number have ever been detected.
Point 2: The Sun's output is variable based on the level of electrical and magnetic activity.
Point 3: The corona of the Sun is hotter than the surface of the Sun.
Point 4: Plasma discharge activity, such as Birkeland currents, have been observed in the corona of the sun.

If the Sun is powered exclusively by fusion occurring at or near its core, we should expect more neutrinos. We should not expect the Sun's output to vary based on magnetism. We should furthermore expect that the hottest part of the Sun will be its core, followed by the surface, with the corona the coolest part of the sun. We should not expect to see energetic electrical discharges, such as Birkeland currents, on the Sun.

 

[Zosimus]

The geology of and formations in that canyon do not resemble those of many ancient canyons at all.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Mt. St. Helens canyon as well.

Let me see whether I understand your argument:

Premise 1: One geologist has observed one rapidly created canyon.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, science knows everything about all rapidly created canyons that ever have or ever will be created.

Premise 2: There are only two possible explanations for a canyon: Gradual erosion or catastrophic flood.

Conclusion 2: Therefore it's impossible that any ancient canyon could have been partially created by a flood at any point during its history.
----------------
Is that an accurate summary of your argument? I'd like to be sure before I rip into it.

 

[Zosimus]

Incised meanders.

Let me see whether I understand your argument.

Premise: The Grand Canyon contains incised meanders.
Conclusion: Therefore, no flooding ever occurs in the Grand Canyon and, even if said flooding did occur, it would not result in any erosion.

Is that an accurate summary of your argument? I'd like to know before I rip into it.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Let me see whether I understand your argument.

Premise: The Grand Canyon contains incised meanders.
Conclusion: Therefore, no flooding ever occurs in the Grand Canyon and, even if said flooding did occur, it would not result in any erosion.

Is that an accurate summary of your argument? I'd like to know before I rip into it.

No, it is not an accurate summary of my argument.

It takes a long time for incised meanders to form to the depth that a large flood would not ruin them.

Add to that, the fact that a great deal of the rock that the Grand Canyon goes through is very hard and would resist significant erosion from floods once the canyon had reached them.

Your dismissal of the knowledge attained within the profession of geology doesn't seem well founded. Are you saying that we cannot know if erosion rates in the past were higher for the same water flow?

 

[Zosimus]

No, it is not an accurate summary of my argument.

It takes a long time for incised meanders to form to the depth that a large flood would not ruin them.

Add to that, the fact that a great deal of the rock that the Grand Canyon goes through is very hard and would resist significant erosion from floods once the canyon had reached them.

Your dismissal of the knowledge attained within the profession of geology doesn't seem well founded. Are you saying that we cannot know if erosion rates in the past were higher for the same water flow?

If that's not your argument, then you should learn to make arguments that are clear, concise, and easily understood.

You say that it takes a long time for incised meanders to form to the depth that a large flood would not ruin them. Who was talking about a large flood? I merely pointed out that the Grand Canyon is prone to flash floods. During the so-called "monsoon" season the Grand Canyon might experience a flash flood every week or even every day.

A simple look at:

shows that the water level is quite low. I'm no expert, but I eyeball that this meander could hold 5-10 times the quantity of water currently flowing through it without overflowing the banks.

So when you say that "we [can] know [whether] erosion rates in the past were higher for the same water flow" you are making a big assumption–the same water flow. Flash floods can and do move larger quantities of water through these channels on a regular basis.

No one can know whether these floods were more common or less common in the past than they are now. No one knows how much plucking may have occurred. Uniformitarian assumptions are just that: assumptions. No one knows whether they are true.

 

[Loudmouth]

If that's not your argument, then you should learn to make arguments that are clear, concise, and easily understood.

You say that it takes a long time for incised meanders to form to the depth that a large flood would not ruin them. Who was talking about a large flood? I merely pointed out that the Grand Canyon is prone to flash floods.

What happens in a flash flood when you have a meandering river that has not incised?

The water overflows the banks, spreads out, and flows in a single direction. It produces a series of parallel braided channels instead of a single, meandering channel.

In order for a flash flood to occur within a meandering channel, the meandering channel has to first be cut by the slow flowing and meandering river.

 

[Zosimus]

What happens in a flash flood when you have a meandering river that has not incised?

The water overflows the banks, spreads out, and flows in a single direction. It produces a series of parallel braided channels instead of a single, meandering channel.

In order for a flash flood to occur within a meandering channel, the meandering channel has to first be cut by the slow flowing and meandering river.

Why is that a problem for the theory? As far as I can tell it isn't a problem at all.