According to justa logic, a house only takes 3 months to build, or a year at most. If we find a house on the Earth, this means that the Earth can't be older than 1 year old.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A) The oils, gas, and coal deposits are all found in geological settings that document tremendous amounts of geological time, regardless of the amount of time it took to convert the raw organics to fossils. Drilling in ancient ocean basins is how we find oil.
1. You talk about being able to create DNA in a test tube -- it is nothing special?!
And since you are so wonderfully made, you creating DNA in a test tube is a far different than purely random forces doing it.
But even if you had all the wonderful genome sequencing now available, and even laying aside the 90%+ of human DNA currently classified as "junk", I don't see how with currently accepted mathematical probabilities and billions of years the small part of coded human DNA could come to pass through random forces. Do you?
2. You say that "catastrophes do not in any way cause significant problems for uniformitarianism." Really? What if a catastrophe markedly increased the percentage of c14 allowed into the atmosphere.
You still have not adjusted your clocks for an increased decay rate the further you go back in time.
I suspected that you were a loon.
The chemical and subatomic reactions used in radiometric dating happen right here on planet Earth. The traces of this evidence are all right here on planet earth.
But, we also can establish without question that the speed of light has been constant for at least the last six billion years.
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html
I overlooked your support here. Thanks for the encouraging information.
(sigh) yet another who thinks he can tell scientists what scientists are really saying instead of what the scientists think they are saying.
Increased decay rates would increase heat. The amount of heat that would be produced by the increase in decay rates that creationists need would melt the Earth into slag.
Since there has been solid Earth for more than 4 billion years, we know that this wasn't the case. Also, we observe that rocks have all of the intermediate decay products in what is called "secular equilibrium" which again demonstrates that decay rates have been the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_equilibrium
Can you understand that his 'support' is merely more lies?
1. You talk about being able to create DNA in a test tube -- it is nothing special?! Come on!
It enables you to grow from one cell into billions within 20 years in a very organized and effective way. In fact, you are made in God's own image.
And since you are so wonderfully made, you creating DNA in a test tube is a far different than purely random forces doing it.
But even if you had all the wonderful genome sequencing now available, and even laying aside the 90%+ of human DNA currently classified as "junk", I don't see how with currently accepted mathematical probabilities and billions of years the small part of coded human DNA could come to pass through random forces. Do you?
2. You say that "catastrophes do not in any way cause significant problems for uniformitarianism." Really?
What if a catastrophe markedly increased the percentage of c14 allowed into the atmosphere. Wouldn't the change in c12/c14 ratio cause the apparent age from carbon 14 dating to be greater than it really was? If not, please tell me why not.
If something really were many millions of years old, I agree it would not be appropriate to measure its age with C14 dating. However, the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils throws the assumption of great age into question, and to me legitimizes the use of C14 dating as a check. When C14 dating, done carefully, in fact produces ages well under 40 thousand years, within the measurement limits of C14 dating, then I think there is a legitimate concern with the millions of years dating.
Prove me wrong. Prove to me rulers do not shrink and clocks do not slow under acceleration?????
Strictly, an observer in relative motion.Correct, they do but only to an outside observer.
Yes. He doesn't really grasp the idea of relativity. In fact, each twin sees the other aging more slowly during the bulk of both the outward and return journeys, but as the travelling twin turns around to come back (changing inertial frames) he sees his Earthbound twin age much more rapidly - to the extent that it more than compensates for the slower aging he sees on the way out and on the way back. To the Earthbound twin, the turnaround takes much longer than expected and the travelling twin seems hardly to age at all until he's up to speed on the return, when, as before, he ages just a little slower.Radiometric clocks in this frame will run consistent to the frame. IF we were looking from OUTSIDE of this frame of reference we might see the clocks different from our own external frame clocks, but how would the people INSIDE the frame see their clocks running slower or rulers shortening?
The twin accelerating in the spaceship doesn't see himself aging slower. It is only in respect to the "stationary" frame his twin is on. And if I'm not mistaken one of the points of relativity is that there is no "preferred" frame.
Strictly, an observer in relative motion.
Yes. He doesn't really grasp the idea of relativity. In fact, each twin sees the other aging more slowly during the bulk of both the outward and return journeys, but as the travelling twin turns around to come back (changing inertial frames) he sees his Earthbound twin age much more rapidly - to the extent that it more than compensates for the slower aging he sees on the way out and on the way back. To the Earthbound twin, the turnaround takes much longer than expected and the travelling twin seems hardly to age at all until he's up to speed on the return, when, as before, he ages just a little slower.
Correct, they do but only to an outside observer.
That's the point here. The dating we are looking at is related to stuff on earth here. Radiometric clocks in this frame will run consistent to the frame. IF we were looking from OUTSIDE of this frame of reference we might see the clocks different from our own external frame clocks, but how would the people INSIDE the frame see their clocks running slower or rulers shortening?
The twin accelerating in the spaceship doesn't see himself aging slower. It is only in respect to the "stationary" frame his twin is on. And if I'm not mistaken one of the points of relativity is that there is no "preferred" frame.
But the clocks in this frame are in constant change if indeed you believe the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. You do not notice this because you too carry the same energy of this frame.
Twin Paradox - Wikipedia, Travelling Twins - Einstein Online, Twins Paradox - EinsteinLight UNSW, etc.No they don't, what ever gave you that idea? You totally fail to grasp Relativity.
I think you're mistaking me for another poster - I didn't claim the twin travelled any particular distance, and I didn't do any calculations by anyone's rulers or clocks. I'm saying that under relative inertial motion (constant velocity) each twin will see the other's clock running slow, but at the turn-around point, the traveller accelerates, so his frame is non-inertial, and GR applies; so an inertial observer will see the traveller's clock run very slow, while the traveller sees theirs run fast.... why are you claiming the twin travels one light year (or 10 or whatever number you choose)? His rulers are shorter, yet you refuse to calculate by his rulers or clocks, why?
There's no such thing as a 'stationary' frame. Observers are only stationary with respect to co-moving (proper) frames.... it is impossible for him to measure one light year between A and B as measured in a stationary frame.
Except it hasn't been has it, because you refuse to adjust your clocks and rulers even if the science you claim to follow demands it of you.
No they don't, what ever gave you that idea? You totally fail to grasp Relativity. The twin under acceleration has shorter rulers and a clock that ticks in longer duration's. He does NOT see A and B one light year apart but greater than one light year. . . .
Well, you got that one backwards. The twin leaving earth to go to the space station one light year distant sees the distance between earth and the space station . . . . shrink. In accordance with relativity.
Say he is traveling at 87% of the speed of light, experiencing thereby, as determined from earthbound observations, a slowing of his time by 50%. Say he is traveling to a star 10 light years distant. The trip is about 11 and a half years to make . . . so the earthbound observers predict he will only experience a little over 5 years time.
The traveling twin, however, sees the whole universe moving in relation to himself, including the star toward which he travels. The distance from earth to the 10 light year distant star is therefore shrunk by 1/2. He also predicts he will only experience a little over 5 years time for his trip, but he attributes the shortened time to the shortened distance.
Everybody observes the same events and merely attributes alternate reasons for those events.
That's the right way to handle relativity.
And its not due to energy content. People in alternate states of motion view others as having alternate energy of motion.
No he doesn't. His rulers are shorter - he sees the distance grow. It is not the distance between points that shrinks - it is the ruler that measures that distance between those two points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
"In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object..."
"...Then the rod will be thrown out of the train in S and will come to rest at the station in S'. Its length has to be measured again according to the methods given above, and now the proper lengthwill be measured in S' (the rod has become larger in that system), while in S the rod is in motion and therefore its length is contracted (the rod has become smaller in that system)"
The space between never changes. Again you make the error of shrinking the distance - not shrinking the ruler. Space does not magically shrink because you travel faster. New York does not magically get closer to LA because you drive faster. Don't try to violate all of known physics to support Fairie Dust.
No he doesn't. Again, the moon does not get closer to you because you fire a rocket ship at it quicker. It is not sharing your frame of reference as it did before. It is not moving at your velocity in respect to your frame. It does not experience the effects experienced in your frame. You incorrectly apply your frame to the moon - when the moon no longer moves relative to your movement. The entire principle behind all of Relativity - everything is Relative to your frame of reference. Only in frames moving in uniform transitional motion do the same effects apply.
You want to magically shrink the distance between objects instead of shrinking your rulers. Is this what it has come to? Defend that claim. Show me on the train tests which observed length contraction on those meter rods - that those observers saw New York closer than before they started, using their measuring rod? They see the distance increase - and their clock ticks slower - and they measure a complete new distance and time for the speed of c proportional to energy content (E=mc^2). And there is no discrepancy that according to their clocks and rulers it takes light a little bit longer to reach the other point, because that other point is now further in distance. And therefore light still travels at c by every frames own clocks and rulers - but never another frames. You can't include the entire universe to be undergoing the effects that are frame dependent. They do not share the accelerating twin's frame. You are violating all of known physics in doing so.
You are accelerating the entire universe with the twin to be applying that frame to it. You can only apply that frame to what shares the twins frame of motion. The ship, his rulers, the clock and the twin. This is why it is all Relative. Because what you call a light year is only a light year in frames sharing our relative velocity through space. All other frames measure different distances and times between objects based upon energy content.
And I think the question comes back around to "why does it matter"? If we are in the same frame as the dinosaur bones we are dating then internally it is still all consistent. Unless I'm very much mistaken the YEC folks are also on earth with us in the same frame.
In other words: within our frame the earth measures as 4.6GA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?