the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[sjastro]

Oh and FYI the predicted ago of the earth went from 20 million years to 4.5 billion years in the last 160 years according to scientists. So it’s not as if this would be the first time they’ve been wrong on this subject. So what they’ve proven “for centuries” as you claim is that they don’t actually know.

What you haven't taken into consideration that we have gone from a Biblical interpretation, to an educated guess by Lord Kelvin using thermodynamics, to a number of radiometric dating tests if all wrong is to a similar order of magnitude which is a remarkable coincidence.

Ironically it is the radiometric dating of meteorites which gives us the most accurate date for the age of the Earth.
The chondrule (globule) shown in one of my meteorite specimens is dated at 4.54 billion years using samples from the same meteorite held by various universities.

 

[Gene2memE]

What evidence?

There was no evidence generated during the creation week.

The creation week was a series of one miracle after another.

*Points vaguely at the entire field of cosmology*

 

[Hans Blaster]

Predictions based on assumptions are not facts, even scientists say that their predicted age of the universe is not a fact.

The age of the Universe is not a "prediction". It is a value based on measurements and models.

That’s the problem with discussing this topic, nobody seems to know the facts about the dating methods.

Oh, we do know.

Nobody seems to know the difference between evidence and proof.

Evidence is for science and proof is for math, logic, and liquor.

If people would actually take the time to learn about them they’d understand that they’re based on the idea that if decay rates remain constant and we calculate how long it would take to back trace the decay back to zero then the material would be approximately X amount of years old.

Not completely. (And we have several ways of determining the constancy of decay rates.)

The problem with this idea is we don’t know that there was no decay when the material was created.

Since radioactive decays change the element, they also change the chemistry. For example, if you have a mineral that contains potassium, you can measure how much of it has decayed into argon and how much of the radioactive potassium remains. the chemistry is straight forward and the original values at crystal formation are known. (Like most of these processes, we are measuring the age to the formation of a material.) Other radioactive dating methods don't require any knowledge of the original composition.

If the material contained isotopic decay as a result of the creation process then obviously the dating methods would be incorrect.

This claim requires the mechanism or effects to be described and replicated if we are to take it seriously scientifically.

So as long as there’s still a plausible argument to support the creation account in Genesis I’m not about to abandon the word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

*Points vaguely at the entire field of cosmology*

What about it?

The entire field of cosmology didn't exist until God called it into existence.

And no physical evidence would have been generated.

 

[David Lamb]

In kings. In Kings it describes a circle 10:units across, 30 around.

I didn’t say say “defines”. But the value of Pi is as clear to the simplest math
as ” four and twenty blackbirds” meaning 24.

i didn’t say “ everything perfectly” either.

So do you have ANY disagreement with what i did say?


My POINT which you did not address at all is that to claim one’s chosen
interpretation of some passage is “Gods ( infallible) Word“ is NOT “believing Gods word”.

It is self- belief.

Thank you. The metal sea for the temple was indeed 10 units across and 30 round, so if it was in fact circular, that makes the proportions given very approximately relate to what we know as pi.

Sorry for not answering your point about claiming some personal interpretation of a passage in God's Word. I agree, but would say that there is a danger of regarding some view that we don't agree with as being somebody else's personal interpretation, whereas it might be something they have come to believe through prayerful study of the bible. Think of the various beliefs about baptism held by genuine Christian people.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What you haven't taken into consideration that we have gone from a Biblical interpretation, to an educated guess by Lord Kelvin using thermodynamics, to a number of radiometric dating tests if all wrong is to a similar order of magnitude which is a remarkable coincidence.

View attachment 355101​

Ironically it is the radiometric dating of meteorites which gives us the most accurate date for the age of the Earth.
The chondrule (globule) shown in one of my meteorite specimens is dated at 4.54 billion years using samples from the same meteorite held by various universities.

View attachment 355102​

If the creation process had an abnormal affect on decay rates and the universe was created in 6 days, should we see a significant difference in these readings?

 

[Astrid]

Thank you. The metal sea for the temple was indeed 10 units across and 30 round, so if it was in fact circular, that makes the proportions given very approximately relate to what we know as pi.

Sorry for not answering your point about claiming some personal interpretation of a passage in God's Word. I agree, but would say that there is a danger of regarding some view that we don't agree with as being somebody else's personal interpretation, whereas it might be something they have come to believe through prayerful study of the bible. Think of the various beliefs about baptism held by genuine Christian people.

And thank you too!

A couple more clarifications -

The Pi thing has a couple of lessons.
One is that the Bible is often approximate.
Exactly “10” , and ”30’ is simply impossible.

Nor could a perfect circle be made.

Next point is that relying solely on the bible
to interpret itself just won’t work for various reasons.

Check,against outside sources when applicable!

Math, say. Pi is not 3. Ok so the passage is not literally true.

As for inerrant God given wisdom I think you have the
danger exactly backwards.

There may be/have been people who were in fact directly
inspired by God.
Remembrr I’m an atheidt from a non christian land.
I don’t pretend to know..

But Imdo know fraud and danger.
Countless people have claimed they have it from God.

Here on this forum. Forty thousand sects.

Generally harmless but without credibility.

As for danger of leaders and their false teaching?

From the childrens crusade through the
Jonestown massacres and widows giving their
all to swindlers like Jim and Tammy.

Maybe danger for the not- so- humble if they meet the God
whose name they spoke in vain ( vanity ) as they
spread their false readings.

 

[Larniavc]

There are things like the value of pi,

The Bible incorrectly describe pi as 3.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible incorrectly describe pi as 3.

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

On a physics test, if a circle is said to have a diameter of 10 feet and the student is asked to compute the circumference, the correct answer is 30 feet—not 31 feet.

SOURCE

 

[Astrid]

The Bible incorrectly describe pi as 3.

That may be so but i sure used more words to say it.

 

[sjastro]

If the creation process had an abnormal affect on decay rates and the universe was created in 6 days, should we see a significant difference in these readings?

I assume you are a YEC.
If the decay rates changed such as an acceleration as proposed by YECs the ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms would be a lot lower.
Take for example the decay of the parent atom ¹⁴C (carbon-14) to the daughter atom ¹⁴N (nitrogen-14) which has a half life of 5730 years.
I picked this example as it is close to 6000 year time frame for YEC.

Neutrons from cosmic rays react with ¹⁴N in the atmosphere to produce ¹⁴C in a process known as cosmic ray spallation.

¹⁴N + n --> ¹⁴C + p where n and p are a neutron and proton respectively.

Then follows the radioactive decay of ¹⁴C.

¹⁴C --> ¹⁴N + β⁻ + ṽₑ where β⁻ and ṽₑ are a beta particle and antineutrino respectively.

The production rate of ¹⁴C through spallation is ~16.5 kg /year.
If the decay rate did not change nearly half of ¹⁴C has decayed to ¹⁴N after 6000 years which amounts to ~8.47 kg/year.

If we try to compress 14 billion years into 6000 years, the decay constant has to be increased by the significant factor 14000000000/6000 ~2350000X.
Hence the amount of ¹⁴C decayed is 2350000 x 8.47 ~1,976,3330 kg/year.
The production rate of ¹⁴C cannot keep up with its decay rate and ¹⁴C would be an extremely rare isotope if the earth was 6000 years old and the reaction rate was increased to compensate for its age.

 

[Gene2memE]

I really don’t care how many people actually believe the Bible, truth is not subjective to personal or popular opinion.

I agree, but that's not what I was getting at. I was responding to your assertion that "people should believe the Bible". My point was that there are plenty of people who do believe the Bible, but don't take a literalist position.

My example was the Catholic priests and laypeople who educated me through middle and high school - they were fine with teaching me the fundamentals of evolution and geology without injecting any of their personal religious beliefs into the lessons.

Expecting me to jump on the bandwagon just because a bunch of other people don’t believe the Bible isn’t a viable argument. I don’t study the Bible just to have somebody else tell me what it says.

Perhaps you should? There are experts in hermeneutics and Biblical history who can provide essential context and historical framing for the writing of the Bible.

Perhaps if you studied the Bible less, but studied works that inform your framework of Biblical interpretation you would get more out of the Bible when you read it? Even if you were to start with something that is unchallenging to your expressed beliefs, it could be of benefit. Id's suggest the writings of the Biblical maximalist school (K. Kitchen, Phil Long, Iain Provan) from the late 1990s/early 2000s, or evangelical hermeneutics from middle of the 1900s (Fuller Theological Seminary is a good place to start).

Predictions based on assumptions are not facts, even scientists say that their predicted age of the universe is not a fact. That’s the problem with discussing this topic, nobody seems to know the facts about the dating methods.

No, the facts about the dating methods are pretty well establish and well known. I'm not an expert on carbon dating, radiometric dating, or luminescence dating but I have easy access to both popular-science level articles explaining them, as well as the original academic-level papers on the theories and evidence behind the various methods.

Nobody seems to know the difference between evidence and proof.

Hard disagree. See this thread for evidence.

If people would actually take the time to learn about them they’d understand that they’re based on the idea that if decay rates remain constant and we calculate how long it would take to back trace the decay back to zero then the material would be approximately X amount of years old. The problem with this idea is we don’t know that there was no decay when the material was created. If the material contained isotopic decay as a result of the creation process then obviously the dating methods would be incorrect. So as long as there’s still a plausible argument to support the creation account in Genesis I’m not about to abandon the word of God.

I'm thinking that it's you that haven't actually taken the time to sit down and understood isotope decay chains and how they're used to date things. I also don't think "we don't know that things weren't miraculously different in the past" is really a plausible argument.

I never said that the entire Bible is intended to be taken literally you’re exaggerating now. And when it comes to biblical doctrine the RCC isn’t the best source to find it.

If your interpretation of the Bible isn't literal, what do you mean by "believe the Bible" then? Why are you arguing YEC (or YEC-adjacent) positions? What standard do you use to judge that something in the Bible is literal or something else?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I assume you are a YEC.
If the decay rates changed such as an acceleration as proposed by YECs the ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms would be a lot lower.
Take for example the decay of the parent atom ¹⁴C (carbon-14) to the daughter atom ¹⁴N (nitrogen-14) which has a half life of 5730 years.
I picked this example as it is close to 6000 year time frame for YEC.

Neutrons from cosmic rays react with ¹⁴N in the atmosphere to produce ¹⁴C in a process known as cosmic ray spallation.

¹⁴N + n --> ¹⁴C + p where n and p are a neutron and proton respectively.

Then follows the radioactive decay of ¹⁴C.

¹⁴C --> ¹⁴N + β⁻ + ṽₑ where β⁻ and ṽₑ are a beta particle and antineutrino respectively.

The production rate of ¹⁴C through spallation is ~16.5 kg /year.
If the decay rate did not change nearly half of ¹⁴C has decayed to ¹⁴N after 6000 years which amounts to ~8.47 kg/year.

If we try to compress 14 billion years into 6000 years, the decay constant has to be increased by the significant factor 14000000000/6000 ~2350000X.
Hence the amount of ¹⁴C decayed is 2350000 x 8.47 ~1,976,3330 kg/year.
The production rate of ¹⁴C cannot keep up with its decay rate and ¹⁴C would be an extremely rare isotope if the earth was 6000 years old and the reaction rate was increased to compensate for its age.

This is still based on the idea that laws of the universe remained unchanged from how they are today. The laws of the universe that we observe today do not remain constant when God is performing miracles. Were the laws of physics behaving normally as we observe them today when Jesus was walking on water? Why would Jesus walk on water in the first place? Perhaps it was to demonstrate that He can and does defy the laws of the universe as He pleases.

 

[sjastro]

This is still based on the idea that laws of the universe remained unchanged from how they are today. The laws of the universe that we observe today do not remain constant when God is performing miracles. We’re the laws of physics behaving normally as we observe them today when Jesus was walking on water? Why would Jesus walk on water in the first place? Perhaps it was to demonstrate that He can and does defy the laws of the universe as He pleases.

I made an error in my calculations where I used the age of the universe 14 billion years old instead of the age of the Earth 4.54 billion years old.
This increases the decay constant by a factor ~762070x not ~2350000x resulting in the decay rate of ¹⁴C ~6,408,960 kg/year and not ~19,763,330 kg/year which is still way beyond the production rate of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere.

This is what happens when the laws of physics are changed, in this case increasing the decay constant so it consistent with a 6000 year old Earth, but is contradicted by the physical evidence as radioactive elements are far more abundant than can be explained by a 6000 year old Earth.

Using the example of Jesus walking on water is not a convincing argument for YEC as most Christians accept the science for an old Earth, while Jesus walking on water is based on faith.
Then there is the question of why the Earth is 6000 years old based on a biblical interpretation which varies according to the individual and leads to different ages.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Perhaps if you studied the Bible less, but studied works that inform your framework of Biblical interpretation you would get more out of the Bible when you read it? Even if you were to start with something that is unchallenging to your expressed beliefs, it could be of benefit. Id's suggest the writings of the Biblical maximalist school (K. Kitchen, Phil Long, Iain Provan) from the late 1990s/early 2000s, or evangelical hermeneutics from middle of the 1900s (Fuller Theological Seminary is a good place to start).

I really don’t have much faith in seminaries. There are seminaries for every denomination who disagree on biblical doctrine which indicates that the majority of them have to be wrong. I have listened to a seminar posted from YouTube by someone here in CF. It was almost 2 hours long and I ended up writing a very long refutation pointing out the mistakes the professor made. The two biggest problems with his explanation were the origin of the creation account in Genesis and how the Israelites would’ve understood it. He insisted that the story originated from Mesopotamia which means that the story came from the imagination of man and not from God and how the Israelites would’ve interpreted it is irrelevant to the truth that it is saying. Jesus was constantly correcting the Jews on their interpretation of scripture which means that how they would’ve interpreted it has no impact at all on what it’s actually teaching. So many people just want to hear what they want to hear so they look around for the first source they can find that promotes their position and they’re content with that. As long as someone with a degree agrees with them then they don’t question it. If the creation account in Genesis is the result of a rewriting of ancient Mesopotamian pagan theology then it’s a serious discredit to the validity of the Bible because it means that Genesis 1 and 2 are nothing more than stories conjured up by the imagination of pagan men and has no more truth to it than the made up pagan gods that were created by men. So I’ve leaned that just because someone has a college degree doesn’t automatically mean that everything they teach is accurate.

No, the facts about the dating methods are pretty well establish and well known. I'm not an expert on carbon dating, radiometric dating, or luminescence dating but I have easy access to both popular-science level articles explaining them, as well as the original academic-level papers on the theories and evidence behind the various methods.

Yes and so do I and I have read them and watched videos of scientists who actually conduct these tests and they make it very clear that their predictions are based on the idea that if X, Y, , and Z are true then the material is X amount of years old. If X,Y,or Z are not true then their prediction is incorrect.

I'm thinking that it's you that haven't actually taken the time to sit down and understood isotope decay chains and how they're used to date things. I also don't think "we don't know that things weren't miraculously different in the past" is really a plausible argument.

It’s only plausible if you ignore the scriptures.

If your interpretation of the Bible isn't literal, what do you mean by "believe the Bible" then? Why are you arguing YEC (or YEC-adjacent) positions? What standard do you use to judge that something in the Bible is literal or something else?

Determining the difference between what is figurative from what is decisive just requires common sense in examining the surrounding context and grammatical usage.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I made an error in my calculations where I used the age of the universe 14 billion years old instead of the age of the Earth 4.54 billion years old.
This increases the decay constant by a factor ~762070x not ~2350000x resulting in the decay rate of ¹⁴C ~6,408,960 kg/year and not ~19,763,330 kg/year which is still way beyond the production rate of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere.

This is what happens when the laws of physics are changed, in this case increasing the decay constant so it consistent with a 6000 year old Earth, but is contradicted by the physical evidence as radioactive elements are far more abundant than can be explained by a 6000 year old Earth.

Using the example of Jesus walking on water is not a convincing argument for YEC as most Christians accept the science for an old Earth, while Jesus walking on water is based on faith.
Then there is the question of why the Earth is 6000 years old based on a biblical interpretation which varies according to the individual and leads to different ages.

View attachment 355205​

Well there’s no doubt that you’re definitely a lot more educated on the subject of isotopic decay than I am which makes me confident in saying that you are probably aware that c14 production in the atmosphere has changed quite drastically in just the last 200 years.

 

[durangodawood]

I cant stand cosmological arguments for a creator.

Full of unsupported assumptions... and empty of imagination.

 

[sjastro]

Well there’s no doubt that you’re definitely a lot more educated on the subject of isotopic decay than I am which makes me confident in saying that you are probably aware that c14 production in the atmosphere has changed quite drastically in just the last 200 years.

If you are alluding to the burning of fossil fuels not only are you comprehensively wrong but ironically has provided a compelling example of why the Earth is considerably older than 6000 years.
Plants do absorb ¹⁴C from the atmosphere but since fossils fuels take millions of years to form, the amount of ¹⁴C has largely disappeared as its half-life is only 5,730 years.
If the Earth was only 6000 years old one would expect ¹⁴C to be a major contributor to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, instead it is ¹²C (~ 98.9%) and ¹³C (~ 1.1%) both are which are stable isotopes of carbon.

It is not only the reaction constants that need changing for a 6000 year old Earth to exist but also the speed of light where distant objects can be no further than 6000 light years instead of the billions of light years for the most distant galaxies as measured by Hubble and JWST.
The Gaia satellite can accurately measure parallaxes up to 10,000 light years which uses geometry and is independent of the speed of light.

The anti-mainstream science rhetoric spread by certain YECists has broader implications that goes beyond conveniently ignoring the evidence which refutes a 6000 year old Earth but can be downright dangerous such as their opposition to the countermeasures adopted in fighting the COVID-19 virus as it is God's vengeance in wiping out gays, transexuals and anyone else who doesn't fit the bill.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you are alluding to the burning of fossil fuels not only are you comprehensively wrong but ironically has provided a compelling example of why the Earth is considerably older than 6000 years.
Plants do absorb ¹⁴C from the atmosphere but since fossils fuels take millions of years to form, the amount of ¹⁴C has largely disappeared as its half-life is only 5,730 years.
If the Earth was only 6000 years old one would expect ¹⁴C to be a major contributor to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, instead it is ¹²C (~ 98.9%) and ¹³C (~ 1.1%) both are which are stable isotopes of carbon.

It is not only the reaction constants that need changing for a 6000 year old Earth to exist but also the speed of light where distant objects can be no further than 6000 light years instead of the billions of light years for the most distant galaxies as measured by Hubble and JWST.
The Gaia satellite can accurately measure parallaxes up to 10,000 light years which uses geometry and is independent of the speed of light.

The anti-mainstream science rhetoric spread by certain YECists has broader implications that goes beyond conveniently ignoring the evidence which refutes a 6000 year old Earth but can be downright dangerous such as their opposition to the countermeasures adopted in fighting the COVID-19 virus as it is God's vengeance in wiping out gays, transexuals and anyone else who doesn't fit the bill.

Again you’re talking about natural process and I’m talking about divine intervention. They’re not going to be the same, they’re not supposed to be the same. What would normally take millions of years to create by natural process only took a day for God to create by divine intervention. And Genesis 1 specifically says that God made the lights in the sky to be signs for the seasons, it wouldn’t make much sense for Him to make them for that purpose but not make them visible for a few billion years.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The anti-mainstream science rhetoric spread by certain YECists has broader implications that goes beyond conveniently ignoring the evidence which refutes a 6000 year old Earth but can be downright dangerous such as their opposition to the countermeasures adopted in fighting the COVID-19 virus as it is God's vengeance in wiping out gays, transexuals and anyone else who doesn't fit the bill.

This sounds like a very obscure viewpoint that was likely held by an extremely minute percentage of Christians. I happen to know a whole lot of people who aren’t Christians who didn’t receive the vaccination because they didn’t think it had undergone a long enough period of testing for them to trust it. I also know a lot of Christians who did receive it. So this stereotype doesn’t hold any water.