Young Earth Hypothesis

[Jamin4422]

So, too, would the energy released from those decays. The heat generated by cramming 4.5 billion years of decay into 6,000 years would melt the Earth into slag. Life would be impossible.

unless you had two planets run into each other to break the mantle.

This is the fine tuning argument that creationists are so fond of.

So you do support the fune tuned arguement then.

Such a universe would produce different evidence that what we observe.

There does seem to be overwelming evidence for a 4.56 billion year old earth. Or at least a earth that is much older then 6,000 years. But we have all known that sense Darwin's friend Lyell wrote his geology book. When he introduced gradualism.

 

[Doveaman]

No. According to the EVIDENCE, the Earth is 4.55 billion years old.

Evidence is interpreted by scientists. Evidence don't do math.

That is falsified by the evidence.
Not according to the evidence.

What evidence falsifies a biosphere that is younger than the planet?

 

[The Engineer]

As long as we agree that it's an assumption and not a fact, that's fine.

Yeah, it's an assumption. If you ask me, everything is an assumption. But there's still a difference between a guess, an educated guess and an assumption that is supported by evidence.

The counter evidence would be lack of evidence of the decay rate in the earth's past.

We do not expect evidence from a time when people had no means of measuring radioactive decay, so I doubt this counts as counter evidence.

Lack of evidence only counts as counter evidence if one would expect the evidence.

By the way, Loudmouth already mentioned that several million years worth of radioactive decay, compressed into 6000 years, would melt us several times over. Quickening radioactive day is the way atomic bombs work, after all: You compress the radioactive material with an explosive charge, it reaches the heat of the sun and levels a town. That's just the short version, but that's roughly how it works.

I am talking about one week they say you CAN go fast then the speed of light and the next week they say a gage was not working right and it turns out that you can NOT go faster then the speed of light. They spent all the money to figure it out, so it is up to them to tell us.

It's the newspapers that jump to the claims, not the scientists. The scientists said they made calculations that suggest that certain particles are faster than light. They never said they actually found a particle faster than light.

By the way, I thought you would like it when people would be honest enough to admit mistakes? That's what scientists do.

unless you had two planets run into each other to break the mantle.

Having a planet slam into another planet won't make any of the two planets more inhabitable.

So you do support the fune tuned arguement then.

Nowhere did he state that. You do not have to accept your opponents premises to point out that they contradict with their argumentation.

EDIT:

Evidence is interpreted by scientists. Evidence don't do math.

That's another great thing: math is entirely objective. The rules are always the same, no matter who does the math. So, in theory, everyone is capable of testing whether the scientists who interpreted the evidence can't do math.

The interpretations of evidence is not subjective when it isn't mathematical, either. They are still required to be logical, and that's why they are peer reviewed. If a scientist makes a gross logical mistake, you can be sure his colleagues will correct it, or you can at least be sure you could detect it. Smaller logical mistakes happen all the time, but again, that's why these things are peer reviewed.

What evidence falsifies a biosphere that is younger than the planet?

Actually, the biosphere is younger than the planet. It is not 6000 years old, however. Thousands of fossils prove this.

Now, you might say, what if God just renewed the biosphere 6000 years ago? Well, then we would sure have found evidence of a massive extinction event 6000 years ago.

 

[Jamin4422]

Evidence is interpreted by scientists. Evidence don't do math.

Actually a 5th grader could do the math. The rate is 38 millimetres per year. Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22 millimetres per year and the day lengthened at an average rate of 12 microseconds per year, both about half of their current values.

 

[Jamin4422]

Having a planet slam into another planet won't make any of the two planets more inhabitable.

The earth in not inhabitable. So is this all an illusion?

I am talking about the moon bouncing off of the earth.

Actually, the biosphere is younger than the planet. It is not 6000 years old, however.

The current biosphere is 12,900 years old. A day in Genesis is equal to 1,000 years. In science they call this the Holocene extinction.

 

[Loudmouth]

As long as we agree that it's an assumption and not a fact, that's fine.

We observe that radioactive decay was the same in the past. RickG already linked the supernova 1987a evidence. There is more.

At it's most fundamental, radioactive decay is controlled by the weak and strong forces. You can't change radioactive decay without changing those two fundamental forces. If those two forces were different in the past it has far reaching consequences well outside of radioactive decay. It would change the pressures and temperatures involved in stellar fusion, as one example. Therefore, if these forces were different in the past then we should see those differences in distant stars. Those differences are not there. What we see is observations consistent with constant fundamental forces throughout the universe.

The counter evidence would be lack of evidence of the decay rate in the earth's past.

See above.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence is interpreted by scientists. Evidence don't do math.

Yes, it is correctly interpretted by the scientists, and completely ignored by creationists. That is my entire point.

What evidence falsifies a biosphere that is younger than the planet?

Radiometric dating falsifies a biosphere that is 10,000 years old.

 

[Stoneghost]

Reference, reference. It all depend on what you refer to.
The normal meaning of our birthdays is referring to the sun.
And there are many many other ways to count it.

YUP, you're right! Completely and totally correct. Which is why science has a definition for a second. The decay rate of a caesium atom. Which is a similar mechanism to carbon dating.

 

[Loudmouth]

unless you had two planets run into each other to break the mantle.

What do you mean by this?

So you do support the fune tuned arguement then.

Do you?

There does seem to be overwelming evidence for a 4.56 billion year old earth. Or at least a earth that is much older then 6,000 years. But we have all known that sense Darwin's friend Lyell wrote his geology book. When he introduced gradualism.

Lyell, like Darwin, got the specifics wrong while getting the general trends correctly. Uniformitarianism has changed since Lyell. It is now understood as understanding how past geologic formations were produced by studying processes in the present. That is, the observed mechanisms producing geologic formations today can be used to understand geologic formations in the past. Even YEC's agree with this since they have tried to use such events as the eruption at St. Helens as a model for past flooding.

 

[RickG]

Yes.

But if that is all you know, then it might be enough to earn you a living, but it is not enough for you to know truth.

Stick to the science juve....stick to the science.

 

[RickG]

Decay rate does not offer evidence of anything. If you go faster then the speed of light then decay rate will increase also. The universe could be 6,000 years old and still have a decay rate of 4.5 billion years.

Jamin, there is absolutely no evidence that decay rates have changed in the slightest. And I'll warn you up front, don't start citing studies that describe minute osscillations of radionuclides that are not even used in radiometric dating, those are not decay rate changes. Additionally, asserting there has been a change in the speed of light is not only lacking any evidence at all, it is a ridiculous assumption.

Furthermore, there are more than 40 different isotopes used in radiometric dating all exhibiting different properties, rates and types of decay. When cross-referenced on the same sample, dates agree. That cannot happen if rates change. There are also a couple dozen non-radiometric dating methods that also agree with the radiometric dates exceeding 6,000 years.

 

[samaus12345]

RickG when was radiometric dating discovered?

 

[RickG]

According to scientists the earth appears to be several billion years old, but according to Genesis 1 the earth's present biosphere appears to be only a few thousand years old.

So we are living on an old earth with a young biosphere.

Well, yes, but considerably older than 6,000 years.

 

[freezerman2000]

I am talking about one week they say you CAN go fast then the speed of light and the next week they say a gage was not working right and it turns out that you can NOT go faster then the speed of light. They spent all the money to figure it out, so it is up to them to tell us.

And so, what if a gauge malfunctioned?They caught the problem and rectified it.That by no means "discredits"Cern. If on the other hand,they had NOT brought this to the attention of the world and let people continue to think that it was possible to go FTL,THAT would have been another matter.

 

[RickG]

RickG when was radiometric dating discovered?

That is pretty hard to pin down. Certain isotopes were known to decay as early as 1895. Actual dating techniques were being developed and appeared in the scientific literature in the earth 20th century, but serious robust techniques did not come of age until the late 1940's and early 1950's.

 

[samaus12345]

Is there observational evidence pre 1895 of decay?

 

[RickG]

Is there observational evidence pre 1895 of decay?

I really haven't looked into that aspect. Why?

 

[The Engineer]

I really haven't looked into that aspect. Why?

So he can tell you that we have absolutely no reason to assume that the rates of radioactive decay did not spontaneously change for no reason whatsoever.

Except that the notion that the laws of physics don't change overnight is a lot less complex than the notion that they can spontaneously get slower or quicker. Assuming the simpler answer is the logical thing to do when you are presented with multiple answers.

He also ignores the fact that increasing the rate of decay in an element would be akin to igniting a nuclear bomb.

Or that changing the two forces of nature that determine how quick the decay happens would have wide-ranging consequences.

Could you please address those problems, jinx25?

 

[samaus12345]

There is no law saying things have to start decaying from the top of the decay chain, it gets taken by FAITH, based on apriori assumptions of deep time/big bang that everything is x million/billion years old then that apriori axiom is inserted into the world of radioisotopes and that no daughter element was present in sample is BLINDLY assumed as is that it started right from the top of the decay chain. Decay chains are a prediction of the FALL OF MAN. DECAY. Why dont elements evolve?

 

[The Engineer]

jinx25, could you please stop ignoring my arguments? If your hypothesis was right, earth would blow up, and the universe would probably stop existing. And it's the more complex hypothesis, which means that we have to dismiss it for the simpler hypothesis which is equally well founded by evidence.

Why dont elements evolve?

What does this have to do with anything?