The Danger of Creationism

[essentialsaltes]

You just said it doesn't test samples that old. How do you know if a test that determines a meteorite is 4.5 billion years old is accurate?

Other data from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and observations of supernova remnants demonstrate that nuclear decay constants have been just that -- constant -- over very long periods of time.

 

[BPPLEE]

Too lazy to leave a link, eh?

So you think that the age of the Sun is in compatible with the geological age of the Earth because *1* star might be older than the Universe? (Or rather that its age is larger than the Universe, just outside the quoted error bars of both.)

First of all, there are other estimates of the age of HD 140283 (the star's proper name) that place it below the concordance model age of the Universe.

Second, stellar ages are dependent on 1D stellar evolution models and the approximations of the convective processes used to make 1D stellar models. These are known to have potential systematic shifts in them and stars aren't quite as good a dating technique as other methods.

That said even the "bad" age for HD 140283 wasn't that bad and the ages given by stellar evolution for the Sun are 4-6 billion years which is completely compatible with the geological age.

Now if you had a star with an evolutionary age of 26+/-1 billion years or the evolutionary age of the Sun was 1.5+/-0.2 billion years then either stellar evolution was making a bad age or (cosmology,geology) was making a bad age. But THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

Astronomy demostrates the Sun is roughly 5 billion years old, geology says the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Given the error budget and limitations of each method these are both consistent with a solar system that formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

You make a good case. You know a lot about the subject. Not saying you're wrong just that I'm skeptical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Other data from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and observations of supernova remnants demonstrate that nuclear decay constants have been just that -- constant -- over very long periods of time.

Not just the remnants...

Type Ia supernovae (the kind used as cosmological probes) are powered by the decay of Ni-56 (to Co-56 and then to Fe-56, it's where the iron in you blood and steel comes from) over the course of a few weeks (locally). If that decay rate were not the same for distant supernovae as for the nearby ones (and laboratory measurements of the decay on Earth), then the supernovae would behave differently in distant galaxies, and they don't.

It's all about consilience of measurements and results. Science is a giant jigsaw puzzle and the pieces just fit together giving us more confidence in each of them.

 

[BPPLEE]

You make a good case. You know a lot about the subject. Not saying you're wrong just that I'm skeptical.

I don't necessarily believe the claim the earth is 6000 years old either. I'm just saying I don't know and I'm skeptical that anyone knows for sure

 

[sjastro]

You have a sample that you know is 4.5 billion years old before you test it? How?

I have mentioned in other posts there are are overlapping dating methods.
On three different meteorite samples using different methods the following ages were obtained.

1. St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)

1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.543 ± 0.019 billion years
2. Sm-Nd isochron 4.55 ± 0.33 billion years
3. Rb-Sr isochron 4.51 ± 0.15 billion years
4. Re-Os isochron 4.68 ± 0.15 billion years

2. Juvinas (basaltic achondrite)

1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.556 ± 0.012 billion years
2. Pb-Pb isochron 4.540 ± 0.001 billion years
3. Sm-Nd isochron 4.56 ± 0.08 billion years
4. Rb-Sr isochron 4.50 ± 0.07 billion years

3. Allende (carbonaceous chondrite)

1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.553 ± 0.004 billion years
2. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.52 ± 0.02 billion years
3. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.55 ± 0.03 billion years
4. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.56 ± 0.05 billion years

 

[BPPLEE]

Too lazy to leave a link, eh?

So you think that the age of the Sun is in compatible with the geological age of the Earth because *1* star might be older than the Universe? (Or rather that its age is larger than the Universe, just outside the quoted error bars of both.)

First of all, there are other estimates of the age of HD 140283 (the star's proper name) that place it below the concordance model age of the Universe.

Second, stellar ages are dependent on 1D stellar evolution models and the approximations of the convective processes used to make 1D stellar models. These are known to have potential systematic shifts in them and stars aren't quite as good a dating technique as other methods.

That said even the "bad" age for HD 140283 wasn't that bad and the ages given by stellar evolution for the Sun are 4-6 billion years which is completely compatible with the geological age.

Now if you had a star with an evolutionary age of 26+/-1 billion years or the evolutionary age of the Sun was 1.5+/-0.2 billion years then either stellar evolution was making a bad age or (cosmology,geology) was making a bad age. But THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

Astronomy demostrates the Sun is roughly 5 billion years old, geology says the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Given the error budget and limitations of each method these are both consistent with a solar system that formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

All this is interesting but I still don't believe the earth formed at just the right distance from the sun with just enough orbit to have just right growing seasons just the right amount of gravity and food and water for life to exist by random chance. Even if all you say is true I just don't see all this happening with nothing in control of the process. Someone who believed in evolution said the chances were better that a tornado could go through a junk yard and create a car than that life formed through evolution yet he still believed it

 

[BPPLEE]

I have mentioned in other posts there are are overlapping dating methods.
On three different meteorite samples using different methods the following ages were obtained.

1. St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)

1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.543 ± 0.019 billion years
2. Sm-Nd isochron 4.55 ± 0.33 billion years
3. Rb-Sr isochron 4.51 ± 0.15 billion years
4. Re-Os isochron 4.68 ± 0.15 billion years

2. Juvinas (basaltic achondrite)

1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.556 ± 0.012 billion years
2. Pb-Pb isochron 4.540 ± 0.001 billion years
3. Sm-Nd isochron 4.56 ± 0.08 billion years
4. Rb-Sr isochron 4.50 ± 0.07 billion years

3. Allende (carbonaceous chondrite)

1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.553 ± 0.004 billion years
2. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.52 ± 0.02 billion years
3. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.55 ± 0.03 billion years
4. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.56 ± 0.05 billion years

Even if all this is true I don't believe the earth and life on earth formed by random chance with nothing in control of the process

 

[Hans Blaster]

All this is interesting but I still don't believe the earth formed at just the right distance from the sun with just enough orbit to have just right growing seasons just the right amount of gravity and food and water for life to exist by random chance. Even if all you say is true I just don't see all this happening with nothing in control of the process. Someone who believed in evolution said the chances were better that a tornado could go through a junk yard and create a car than that life formed through evolution yet he still believed it

Watch it when you move those goal posts! Some one could get injured.

[Life evolved on a planet where life could evolve and survive. Big whoop.]

 

[BPPLEE]

Watch it when you move those goal posts! Some one could get injured.

[Life evolved on a planet where life could evolve and survive. Big whoop.]

If life is the result of random chance what value does life have? It's survival of the fittest.

 

[BPPLEE]

If life is the result of random chance what value does life have? It's survival of the fittest.

I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. Too much left to random chance for me to believe. You may be right about everything you said but I can't swallow all of it happening without someone being in control of the process. That takes more faith than I have.

 

[Astrid]

We were talking about radiometric dating

A chance to learn something!
Science- scoffers, take note.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If life is the result of random chance what value does life have?

Answer #1: There are thousands of years of philosophy and religion to answer questions about the value of life.

Answer #2: Your fallacy is argument from consequences.

 

[Astrid]

The truth is convenient, yes.

But it bites and stings those who cling to
the wrong side

 

[essentialsaltes]

I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

This thread is not about atheism and theism, but about scientific evolution and pseudoscientific creationism.

You may be right about everything you said but I can't swallow all of it happening without someone being in control of the process.

Many people believe the earth is billions of years old and life evolved and also believe someone was in control of the process. Nothing prevents anyone from believing in both scientific evolution and theism.

 

[BPPLEE]

Answer #1: There are thousands of years of philosophy and religion to answer questions about the value of life.

Answer #2: Your fallacy is argument from consequences.

This is why we can kill our children if they are inconvenient and young men kill other young men without remorse

 

[BPPLEE]

This thread is not about atheism and theism, but about scientific evolution and pseudoscientific creationism.



Many people believe the earth is billions of years old and life evolved and also believe someone was in control of the process. Nothing prevents anyone from believing in both scientific evolution and theism.

I agree but creation is not pseudoscience

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree but creation is not pseudoscience

Right. It should be qualified as either Theology or Philosophy.

 

[Astrid]

I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. Too much left to random chance for me to believe. You may be right about everything you said but I can't swallow all of it happening without someone being in control of the process. That takes more faith than I have.

The more information, the less "faith"
is needed, as we all observe in daily life.

I think you are a couple of points off
compass, re "random".
Everything has elements of the random.

But order observably does emerge from chaos.

No hand needs to guide the randomly moving
molecules in a solution to join together and
form perfect crystals.

 

[Astrid]

I agree but creation is not pseudoscience

Oh?
Educate me?
What data do you have for creation?

 

[BPPLEE]

The more information, the less "faith"
is needed, as we all observe in daily life.

I think you are a couple of points off
compass, re "random".
Everything has elements of the random.

But order observably does emerge from chaos.

No hand needs to guide the randomly moving
molecules in a solution to join together and
form perfect crystals.

A crystal is not as complicated as DNA