Young Earth Hypothesis

[Doveaman]

Specifically why? Your video does not support your comment.

The video shows that layers of strata can be laid down at the same time rapidly and not necessarily successively over eons, which indicates that some fossils in the top layers could be older than fossils in the bottom layers or that both fossils are the same age.

 

[Doveaman]

So how much change is there?

We were once told the decay rates did not change, until change was discovered. Now you want to know how much change.

It changes, that’s the point.

Who are these scientists?

Variations of decay rates

Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

That makes zero sense. Why wouldn't the fluctuations be the same as they are today? Why are you assuming that the fluctuations would be different in the past?

Why would you assume it was the same despite the fact that it is observed to fluctuate, and was even observed to change for a whole year?

By "some scientists" you mean creationists who will never accept an old earth, right?

No, I mean scientists who do accept an old earth, but don’t accept your estimation of how old.

But they aren't mixed up. They are ordered. We consistently find a correlation between the species and the ratio of isotopes in the rocks that surround them. We never find rabbits in sediments that date to the Cambrian, as one example.

Different layers of sediment can be laid down at the same time rapidly through flooding and not necessarily successively over eons. This means that fossils in different layers can be the same age.

If you think that fossils and rocks are all mixed up then you have a LOT to learn about geology.

Your knowledge of geology is based on a uniformitarian assumption, a silly assumption in light of the many catastrophes that occurred in the earth’s history, some known and some unknown.

Just as Thor is evidence that lightning can be created by non-natural means.

Theistic-evolutionists believe in recreation with modification, which is an observed fact.

Yes, they are called mutation and natural selection.

I don’t care what they are called. Let’s see how it works? Let’s see how it can change an ape into a man?

 

[Doveaman]

The fluctuations aren't random.

No kidding.

They correlate with the earth's distance to the sun. For them to be quicker a few thousand years ago, the earth would have to be much closer to the sun.

It seems like not only the sun is the cause:

Variations of decay rates

It would also mean the earth would drift away from the sun. I don't think that's the case.

Some scientists proposed that the earth's distance from the sun might be the cause of the last ice age and probably other ice ages before.

By the way, I think substantial differences in the decay rate wouldn't show up unless earth was outside the life-zone. Probably not even then.

That might explain Genesis 1: “Now the earth was formless and empty…” – (Gen 1:2).

They aren't mixed up.

I find it hard to believe fossils wouldn’t get mixed up during bolide impacts, super earthquakes, super volcanoes, cosmic lightning bolts, advancing glaciers, flooding, etc.

That's why you find dinosaurs in different sediments than, say, dogs.

Flooding tend to sort bodies or bones by size, shape, or density. Besides, many more bones have not been found than have been found.

We explained that to you, time and time again. If the radioactive decay was a million times quicker, then it would have emitted a million times more energy per time unit. Guess what would happen then? The world would melt.

Where did you get that “million times quicker” from? Certainly not from me.

No one said it was a constant, just that it's very closely linked to them and doesn't change for no reason because those constants are, you guessed it, constant. Decay rates can change, but not for no good reason.

If the decay rates can change or fluctuate, then your dating methods are not reliable.

That's because the best model helps you understand the world best.

It’s still a model that changes. Reality does not change.

Too bad the resurrection of Jesus is not exactly a scientific theory, either.

That’s because the resurrection of Jesus is a fact, not a theory. Just ask any theistic evolutionists.

Yeah, evolution.

The problem with evolution is that we can never observe an ape evolving into a man. All you can do is point your finger at similar traits and cry “EVOLUTION”. Human evolution will always be an assumption for as long as we live.

On the other hand, the resurrection (recreation) of Jesus is an observed fact. Jesus died and was buried with a body that was suited to His earth environment and He was resurrected (recreated) with a body suited to His heavenly environment.

Recreation with modification is a fact.

Decent with modification is an assumption.

 

[KimberlyAA]

I believe in the young Earth and Universe hypothesis.

Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Dating is done with the preconceived notion that the Earth started off as a molten blob. The Bible says the Earth was initially covered in water. Dating would be completely different depending on the assumptions about the initial state of the planet.

There are many biological, geological, isotopic, astronomical and historical phenomena that challenge the old Earth and Universe paradigm. It's way too many to describe here, however.

As with any logical proposition in a court of law, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of say, 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%. In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99%.

The evolutionary ideas are built up around the age given by the radiometric date for the Earth. A naturalistic explanation of origins is dependent on this old age. Because then 'time is the atheist's best friend here'. I don't believe that one can be Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. I firmly believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead after His crucifixion in Golgotha. My young Earth beliefs correspond to this fact as Jesus was labelled the "second Adam". Theistic evolution imo is a self-contradiction. I have a deep respect for scientists who challenge long-standing dogma.

(I don't mean to start any debate here. Just stating some reasons for what I believe.)

Albert Einstein is rumored to have opined, “A thousand experiments cannot prove

me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

 

[The Engineer]

It changes, that’s the point.

That's not the point! Just because scientists got something wrong doesn't mean they got everything wrong. If you think they got everything wrong, please prove it, but stop posting ad hominems in disguise.

Why would you assume it was the same despite the fact that it is observed to fluctuate, and was even observed to change for a whole year?

Because it still doesn't change for no reason, maybe?

Different layers of sediment can be laid down at the same time rapidly through flooding and not necessarily successively over eons. This means that fossils in different layers can be the same age.

So the great flood quickly laid down around ten different geological layers?

Your knowledge of geology is based on a uniformitarian assumption, a silly assumption in light of the many catastrophes that occurred in the earth’s history, some known and some unknown.

More about that later.

Theistic-evolutionists believe in recreation with modification, which is an observed fact.

If you mean by recreation with modification the "fact" that jesus was resurrected, then no, it's not an observed fact.

I don’t care what they are called. Let’s see how it works? Let’s see how it can change an ape into a man?

You want to know how natural selection works? Okay. Random mutations occur in a population. The well-adapted survive and mate. The not-so-well-adapted members die off. The traits of the well-adapted members get carried into the next generation, and the whole thing begins again.

Accumulate enough of those tiny, beneficial mutations, and you get a new species.

No kidding.

If they aren't random, this means they don't change for no good reason. Then why do you deny that they are reliable?

Some scientists proposed that the earth's distance from the sun might be the cause of the last ice age and probably other ice ages before.

You claim that the decay rates were much quicker in the past. This would not make much of a difference if the earth would change its orbit once in a while, a little bit, because the periods with a quicker decay rate would be balanced out by periods with a slower decay rate.

For your claims to work, the changes must have been consistent over the past. This implies that the earth was in a permanent ice age in the past.

That might explain Genesis 1: “Now the earth was formless and empty…” – (Gen 1:2).

If the earth was a dead planet back then, the whole C14 cycle wouldn't make sense, anyway, as far as I can see.

I find it hard to believe fossils wouldn’t get mixed up during bolide impacts, super earthquakes, super volcanoes, cosmic lightning bolts, advancing glaciers, flooding, etc.

The sedimentary layers are mixed up, enough to account for disasters, but not enough to discredit modern geology.

Many of the events you listed lack the force to penetrate more than a few meters into the earth. Others have enough force, but are too seldom. If volcanoes and meteorites were strong enough to shuffle the sedimentary layers, we would probably still live in an ice age.

And where did you get that thing with the cosmic lightning bolts from? Any energy jet from space that was capable of shuffling several sedimentary layers on earth would have boiled our atmosphere away.

Flooding tend to sort bodies or bones by size, shape, or density.

This would make sense if dinosaurs were consistently bigger than animals in the present day. It doesn't work when you have a compsognatus and a cat.

Where did you get that “million times quicker” from? Certainly not from me.

There's no excuse for that! This is basic math, how could you have gotten THAT wrong?
If the decay rate was 10 times quicker in the past, that would mean it would have emitted 10 times more energy, you understand this? It would also mean the dinosaurs died off 6,5 million years ago, not 65 million years ago. Still much older than the age of the earth you propose.

If the decay rate was 1000 times quicker, this would mean the dinosaurs died 65000 years ago. Still not the age you propose.

It must have been 10000 times quicker than the current decay rate for your timeline would make sense. Guess what happens when the day rate is that quick? The radioactive isotopes emit 10000 times more energy per time unit!

Only if the decay rate was roughly 10000 times quicker would it be consistent with the biblical age of the earth, and at that point, every life form would boil to death!

If the decay rates can change or fluctuate, then your dating methods are not reliable.

Wrong! They are only less reliable. They are not completely unreliable. There's a difference! And as I told you, unless the fluctuation was in the order of magnitudes, it would not make a difference for you!

It’s still a model that changes. Reality does not change.

You don't get it, do you? Without a reality model, we would not even KNOW reality!

That’s because the resurrection of Jesus is a fact, not a theory. Just ask any theistic evolutionists.

It's not a fact. Just ask any scientologist.

The problem with evolution is that we can never observe an ape evolving into a man.

Maybe because that took several million years? By the way, I looked it up. Speciation has been observed. There's even a mosquito that lives exclusively in the London underground.

We can observe natural selection. We can observe mutation. It all points to the evolution of species.

All you can do is point your finger at similar traits and cry “EVOLUTION”.

That's not how it works, but whatever.

Human evolution will always be an assumption for as long as we live.

It's a theory. Not an assumption.

On the other hand, the resurrection (recreation) of Jesus is an observed fact. Jesus died and was buried with a body that was suited to His earth environment and He was resurrected (recreated) with a body suited to His heavenly environment.

It was observed.

2000 years ago.

And at least 30 years after the event.

 

[RickG]

The video shows that layers of strata can be laid down at the same time rapidly and not necessarily successively over eons, which indicates that some fossils in the top layers could be older than fossils in the bottom layers or that both fossils are the same age.

The video is laughable. How can anyone can be so gullible to think that that represents geologic processes. Geologists are not stupid, the video is.

 

[The Engineer]

As with any logical proposition in a court of law, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of say, 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%. In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99%.

This sounds like something Andrew Schlafly would say. What's wrong with this argument is that you can't just arbitrarily assign probabilities to arguments. Either an argument is wrong, or it's not wrong.

 

[RickG]

Variations of decay rates

By any chance are you an alternate of Zaius? I discussed that paper and several similar papers with him a couple of months ago.

For anyone to cite that paper and make the claim that it is proof or even evidence that radiometric dating is invalid, they fall into one of two categories.

1. They are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting the paper.
2. They are totally ignorant on the subject and do not know they are being mislead.

Quite frankly, I think you fall under the second category. Have you actually read the paper, the entire paper? Are you aware that none of the isotopes discussed are used in any radiometric dating method whatsoever?


Do you remember me mentioning in a previous post that the scientific literature describes those variations as "oscillations", not "fluctuations"? An oscillation is not a change in decay rate. The oscillation is constant, it does not change. The paper you linked specifically states "oscillations. It doesn't even mention the word fluctuation except in the abstract. Didn't read past the abstract, did you?



Now look at the data they present. Beryllium 7 has an oscillating variation of 0.015% and cobalt 60 at 0.83%. Do you really think that such a minute variation (oscillation) would invalidate radiometric dates? You can't possibly be serious.


There are two papers that cite your paper. Both come to the same general conclusions and none of the three papers question radiometric dating in the least.


http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=JMP20111100010_67626378.pdf&paperID=8635
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.4174

 

[Jamin4422]

We were once told the decay rates did not change, until change was discovered. Now you want to know how much change.

The results do not change. The same item will always get the same results. Only they really do not know what those results mean. Different elements decay at different rates and the rates are not steady or consistant based on age. Also some elements decay faster and some decay slower. Of course once they are "calibrated" they are accurate. But to be calibrated in this case means to already know how old the item is.

 

[Jamin4422]

So the great flood quickly laid down around ten different geological layers?

Why of course, how could you think otherwise.

Catastrophism was the theory that was around before Lyell came out with Gradualism. Of course Darwin tried to use Lyell's theory but it really does not apply to Biology the same way it does to Geology. Biology clearly has explosions (radiations) and extinctions based on the change in environmental conditions. Where Biology has periods of catastrophic events along with long periods of slow gradual change. Like the Grand Canyon, where the layers were formed over a long period of time. The Canyon was carved out in a fairly short period of time by comparison.

 

[Jamin4422]

By the way, I think substantial differences in the decay rate wouldn't show up unless earth was outside the life-zone. Probably not even then.

The life zone? There would be no life on Earth as we know it is it were not for the moon and the moons effect on the earth. So what R U suggesting. In order to duplicate the conditions that we have here on earth you would have to have a star the same size as our sun. A planet the same size as our planet the same distance from the sun. With a moon the same size as our moon the same distance from the earth? What do you think the chance is of that happening? To create your "life-zone".

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Clearly it is the firmament or the atmosphere that makes the difference. Along with what they call the green house effect. That is a lot more important then hitting your keyhole life-zone.

 

[Gracchus]

The video shows that layers of strata can be laid down at the same time rapidly and not necessarily successively over eons, which indicates that some fossils in the top layers could be older than fossils in the bottom layers or that both fossils are the same age.

First of all, the video doesn't show that. There was no example of older fossils overlaying younger, nor was there any explanation of how such a thing could occur.

In river beds the, speed of flow does indeed determine the size of the transported particles. Since the river usually flows faster near its source, one is going to find boulders and pebbles further up the stream bed, sand farther down, and silt in the delta. If the speed of the stream increases by uplift or stream piracy, silt may be overlain by sand. But at any point the overlying sediments are younger.

The principle of superposition says nothing about how rapidly the sediments are laid down. What it does say, is that younger sediments overlay older sediments.

 

[RickG]

The life zone? There would be no life on Earth as we know it is it were not for the moon and the moons effect on the earth. So what R U suggesting. In order to duplicate the conditions that we have here on earth you would have to have a star the same size as our sun. A planet the same size as our planet the same distance from the sun. With a moon the same size as our moon the same distance from the earth? What do you think the chance is of that happening? To create your "life-zone".

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Clearly it is the firmament or the atmosphere that makes the difference. Along with what they call the green house effect. That is a lot more important then hitting your keyhole life-zone.

Good point, but I think The Engineer is commenting about the effect of the sun on cosmogenic radionuclides discussed in Doveman's linked paper. Therefore, Earth's elliptical orbit; where those oscillations are a reflection of where Earth is in its orbit. But no matter, the oscillations are extremely small and do not occur with any isotopes in radiometric dating.

 

[The Engineer]

The life zone? There would be no life on Earth as we know it is it were not for the moon and the moons effect on the earth.

This has nothing to do with the life zone. The life zone is the zone around a star in which a life-supporting planet could dwell. A planet outside the life zone would be too hot to support life, or too cold, or be bombarded with too much radiation.

If anything on earth was different, life would be different. That doesn't mean the moon is essential for life.

So what R U suggesting.

I suggest you write properly.

In order to duplicate the conditions that we have here on earth you would have to have a star the same size as our sun. A planet the same size as our planet the same distance from the sun. With a moon the same size as our moon the same distance from the earth? What do you think the chance is of that happening? To create your "life-zone".

The sun doesn't need the exact size as ours, as long as the zone with a temperature that would support life wouldn't be bombarded with too much radiation, everything would be fine.

As far as I know, there are three planets in our star system that dwell in the life-zone: Venus, Mars, and Earth, so this condition is not that hard to fulfill. About the other conditions, I don't know.

The moon isn't essential, as I said.

Tinker Grey made an excellent post about this very issue:

To be totally geeky (and actually enhance your point), there are between 100 & 400 billion stars in our galaxy. In the the universe, there are an estimate 10[sup]22[/sup] to 10[sup]24[/sup] stars.

If each star averages 1 planet and we take the lower of the two estimates for stars, 10[sup]22[/sup], then there are 10[sup]22[/sup] planets in the universe.

If there is a one-in-a-million chance of an earth-like planet, then there would be 10[sup]16[/sup] earth-like planets in the universe! That is, 10 million-billion or 10 thousand trillion!

If one says, "bah, odds are more like 1/10[sup]9[/sup]", then there would still be 10[sup]13[/sup] earth-like planets ... 10 trillion.

Just wow.

You see, if we assume that one in a million planets support life, we still have trillions of them in our universe. That's why I don't accept the argument from a fine-tuned earth; even with an insanely low probability of a planet like earth existing, there will still be billion planets like ours out there.

And mind you, we don't KNOW if the probability is that low.

Clearly it is the firmament or the atmosphere that makes the difference. Along with what they call the green house effect. That is a lot more important then hitting your keyhole life-zone.

The right atmosphere would be useless if it was frozen, or had a temperature of 300 degreres, as would be the case if it was outside the life zone.

 

[Jamin4422]

even with an insanely low probability of a planet like earth existing, there will still be billion planets like ours out there.

How far would those planets be? How long would it take to travel from here to there or from there to here?

The life zone is the zone around a star in which a life-supporting planet could dwell.

Without an atmosphere (firmament) the change in the temp would be more like 300 degrees. As it is the difference is about 50 degrees from the Equator to the Poles. The air and water currents to balance this difference is a lot of what creates our weather patterns. I remember once I want to a movie and when I came out of the movie the temp outside had dropped 50 degrees and it was very cold.

Even you admit we should have life on Venus and Mars, but we do not because there is no atmosphere.

I suggest you write properly.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.” 1 cor 1 26

 

[USincognito]

You keep making this argument despite the fact that scientists have observed decay fluctuations. I take it you are in denial.

You keep citing "dinosaurc14ages.com" as if it were a physics journal or somesuch when it's clearly a Creationist hack website.

How about linking to actual papers rather than Creationist hack websites before lecturing others, o.k.?

 

[USincognito]

I do not trust their ability to measure decay rate at all. It is just not that consistant.

Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[USincognito]

The video shows that layers of strata can be laid down at the same time rapidly and not necessarily successively over eons, which indicates that some fossils in the top layers could be older than fossils in the bottom layers or that both fossils are the same age.

All I saw are poorly rendered CGI, stock footage and a couple of images.

No evidence though.

 

[Jamin4422]

Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder how much it cost them to get the reading on that sample by the time they figured it all out. It maybe a nice toy for rich people, but it's more then us poor folk can afford.

 

[The Engineer]

How far would those planets be? How long would it take to travel from here to there or from there to here?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?!

Without an atmosphere (firmament) the change in the temp would be more like 300 degrees. As it is the difference is about 50 degrees from the Equator to the Poles. The air and water currents to balance this difference is a lot of what creates our weather patterns.

Yeah, okay! Planets need an atmosphere to support life, I said so myself!

Still, your numbers are almost certainly wrong.

I remember once I want to a movie and when I came out of the movie the temp outside had dropped 50 degrees and it was very cold.

That's a cool story, bro!

Even you admit we should have life on Venus and Mars, but we do not because there is no atmosphere.

Where did I say that there should be life on Venus and Mars? I only said that they are in the life zone!

By the way, both planets do have an atmosphere! It's just that Mars' atmosphere is around 95% CO2, and that Venus atmosphere blocks out the light while still creating a green house effect, consists of sulfur and is several times denser than earths atmosphere.

You don't know what the life zone is. You don't know that Mars and Venus have atmospheres. You have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you grab a book and read a little before you come back.