Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Subduction Zone]

None of them are correct.

Do they account for the velocity of the earth spinning at 1,000 mph? Or it’s orbit around the sun at 67,000 mph? Or the suns orbit around the galaxy at 514,000 mph? Or the galaxies velocity through space?

No, they do not. Because as I already told you which you ignored..... while sitting in front of your computer are you stationary? Your devices say you are. Yet once again you are spinning around the earths surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which is moving through space.

I already stated many times that the only velocity one can detect is an object set in motion from ones frame and then only relative to them.

The car is not traveling at 50 mph. It is in reality traveling at 50 mph + 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 514,000 mph + an unknown velocity.....

You like others on here can believe it is moving at only 50 mph, but you would be wrong....

So who do we trust. You that thinks it’s only going 50 mph or the reality that it is moving at the sum of all the velocities.......

What about the police officer on the ground.... does his radar gun say he is in motion? Yet he is, at a great velocity. In fact he insists he is stationary. As the person in the car thinks he is stationary. As any person in the truck would say he was stationary without external references. He only knows he is moving because his wheels are turning around on the ground. But he could just as easily consider himself as stationary and the ground moving beneath him...

This once again demonstrates a thinking that there is a point that is truly stationary. That point cannot be found in our universe. Einstein's theory relies on the relative motion of objects. There is no absolute motion of an object in his theory. Flat Earthers believe that the Earth is not moving. They think it is stationary. That is why your idea that Frame A is stationary is a Flat Earth belief.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And all frames can do that and get correct results.

Says the twin that can’t see the correct rate of twin A’s clock.....

You are assuming that 'stationary' has an absolute meaning. It doesn't. Twin A is stationary in his frame, and moving in twin B's outward frame and moving in the opposite direction in B's return frame. In yet another frame, A will be moving at a different speed.

Twin A’s entire frame would be in motion...... He only thinks he is stationary because everything in his frame is moving at the same velocity as he is....

ALL clocks, in whatever inertial frame you pick, are equally valid.

No, all clocks are valid in their frame but nowhere else..... because you still don’t understand why light remains c in every frame regardless of velocity.

Yes, every frame is stationary in itself.

No, every frame is moving. It is moving with you. It isn’t stationary any more than you are.

Exactly. We can approximate by a local Lorentz frame that is at rest with respect to any particular motion for a limited time. Every Lorentz frame is equally valid as a reference frame.

Only in one frame. Because you don’t understand why light travels at c regardless of the velocity of the observer.

I can approximate by an inertial frame in which I am instantaneously at rest. The acceleration means I can continuously changing such frames (just like my tangent vector is always changing).

How did that work out for twin B who thinks twin A’s clocks slowed when only his did.....

Not at all. I can convert from the frame at which they are at rest to any other inertial frame using LTs.

And yet you can’t even compute your own velocity.....

Not when you take into account accelerations, we aren't. We can *approximate* by frames that are at rest for limited times and distances. We are continually changing frames though, because of acceleration.

So much for your inertial frames at rest....

No, they do not. They give *different* answers than other frames. But all of the answers are equally valid in computing things like how much someone ages.

No they are not. Twin B can’t even tell his clocks have slowed. He incorrectly thinks A’s have slowed.

You already agreed it was twin B’s motion which caused his clock to slow. And only twin B’s motion....

They give answers relevant only to their own frame.

But you don’t understand why light travels at c regardless of velocity, so I understand why you are confused......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This once again demonstrates a thinking that there is a point that is truly stationary. That point cannot be found in our universe. Einstein's theory relies on the relative motion of objects. There is no absolute motion of an object in his theory. Flat Earthers believe that the Earth is not moving. They think it is stationary. That is why your idea that Frame A is stationary is a Flat Earth belief.

Of course it can’t be found. It could be 1 light year away and you wouldn’t know it. You couldn’t identify a stationary frame if you saw it because your devices would say you are stationary and it was in motion.

The statement no stationary frame exists does not equal no stationary frame can be detected..... an unprovable hypothesis and therefore not a valid theory.

No they don’t. FE believe the earth is not spinning. They believe it is the earths motion through space which causes the appearance of gravity.

You are as unaware of what that theory says as you are about most things....

Except you are aware of what our devices say, then ignore them when it comes to our motion through space. But then consider the twins devices to be spot on....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it can’t be found. It could be 1 light year away and you wouldn’t know it. You couldn’t identify a stationary frame if you saw it because your devices would say you are stationary and it was in motion.

The statement no stationary frame exists does not equal no stationary frame can be detected..... an unprovable hypothesis and therefore not a valid theory.

No they don’t. FE believe the earth is not spinning. They believe it is the earths motion through space which causes the appearance of gravity.

You are as unaware of what that theory says as you are about most things....

Except you are aware of what our devices say, then ignore them when it comes to our motion through space. But then consider the twins devices to be spot on....

You don't seem to realize that there is no reason to believe that such a frame exists.

Once again, all motion is relative. Until you understand this you will be stuck with your Flat Earth beliefs. And actually that is more than a testable hypothesis, it is a theory that has been tested and confirmed countless times. I have to remind you once again that just because you may not be able to test a concept that does not mean that others cannot do so. In fact the first test for it was done long before the theory was developed. I will see if you can figure it out. There is little difference between your beliefs and the beliefs of a Flattie.

 

[Polymath257]

How did that work out for twin B who thinks twin A’s clocks slowed when only his did.....

I did this twice already. And it worked out correctly.

And yet you can’t even compute your own velocity.....

With respect to what? There is no such thing as absolute velocity.

No they are not. Twin B can’t even tell his clocks have slowed. He incorrectly thinks A’s have slowed.

And they did in BOTH of twin B's frames. Yet they gave the correct answers. I showed how in two different ways.

You already agreed it was twin B’s motion which caused his clock to slow. And only twin B’s motion....

It was twin B's motion with the respect to the frame of A that made A measure twin B's clocks moving slower. It was A's motion with respect to B that made B measure A's clocks as slower. Both are correct in their frames. There is no absolute.

They give answers relevant only to their own frame.

Wrong.

But you don’t understand why light travels at c regardless of velocity, so I understand why you are confused......

It travels at c in all frames because the Maxwell equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations. That's the whole reason.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course it can’t be found. It could be 1 light year away and you wouldn’t know it. You couldn’t identify a stationary frame if you saw it because your devices would say you are stationary and it was in motion.

The statement no stationary frame exists does not equal no stationary frame can be detected..... an unprovable hypothesis and therefore not a valid theory.

No they don’t. FE believe the earth is not spinning. They believe it is the earths motion through space which causes the appearance of gravity.

You are as unaware of what that theory says as you are about most things....

Except you are aware of what our devices say, then ignore them when it comes to our motion through space. But then consider the twins devices to be spot on....

Once again, according to SR, ALL inertial frames are *equally* valid. There is no absolute concept of 'stationary'.

That you don't get this means you fail to understand SR. It really is that simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1) Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week. God created an already mature creation with adult humans, mature fruit-bearing trees, and starlight already reaching earth to be appreciated by Adam even though the stars are located billions of light-years away.

So basically, the equivalent of Last Thursdayism (= ie: the idea that everything was created last thursday and made to look and feel like billions of years old, while we humans are created at a specific age with the memories of having lived our entire lives).

2) Using the various Biblical genealogies and documented lifetimes, it appears the earth is about 6000 - 7000 years old.

According to some medieval priest anyway.

3) There is no error-free way to date the age of ancient items such as rocks, etc..

But there are plenty of methods with very acceptable error margins.
And all of them converge on the exact same answers (an earth of about 4.5 billion years old, a solar system of about 4.6 billion years old, a universe of about 13.7 billion years old and first homo sapiens appearing around 150.000 years ago).

But off course, why do you even mention this point? With the Last Thursdayism-ish concept you already established in point 1, why does it even matter how old things look or how old things are measured?

If you already decided that your god can make creatures that look exactly like they would look as if they are 30 years old, couldn't he do the exact same with rocks looking as if they are 4.5 billion years old?


Not that Last Thursdayism is a convincing argument or anything... but it seems rather useless to then go ahead and attack very valid scientific methods and models, while you actually already established that this creator god you speak of has precedents of creating things with "embedded age".

Various radiometric dating methods ALWAYS include multiple NON-provable steady-state assumptions in the calculations. This is why volcanic debris has been dated as millions of years old when it actually formed on a known date of an eruption

Dating measurements from people who have no clue what they are doing, are not a valid argument against the validity of dating methods.

That's the equivalent of saying that a car doesn't work because it doesn't move when pressing the gas. While not disclosing that the driver failed to put it into gear first....






I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post.
A quick scan shows it's just one PRATT after the other in yet another gish gallop.

Same old dishonest creationist tactics.
Fallacy after fallacy, PRATT after PRATT and all of that, with some additional preacher sauce on top of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, no pet Rex?

You could go for a chicken or turkey.
It's the next best thing ;-)

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Science is just a tool of inquiry in my opinion and scientists can be wrong. The claim that Earth is 4.5 billion plus years old is just that, a claim. Is there evidence? A theory couldn't exist if there wasn't, so yes, there is evidence. Is there evidence to the contrary? Yes but the scientific consensus doesn't accept it as reason to abandon their theory on the age of the Earth.

What "evidence to the contrary" is there?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What "statement of faith"? What lies from Behe, Meyer, and Axe?

Every creationist organization has a "statement of faith" - and the discovery institute is no exception. Ever heared of the "wedge" strategy from the DI? You might want to look it up.

As for lies / dishonesty....
Here's a fun fact.

In order to be able to all their "intelligent design" nonsense a scientific theory, they had to actually redefine what a "scientific theory" is. Behe literally had to rewrite that definition to be able to include ID nonsense as a "scientific theory".

At the Dover trial, he was questioned about that redefining.
Under oath, the dude had to admit that under his altered definition, a few other things also call under "scientific theory". One of those things: astrology. You know. Horoscopes and such.

Yes, you've read that correctly: in order to be able to call ID a science, you have to redefine "science" in such a way that astrology ALSO counts as science.

I think no further comment is required on that one. That, in and of itself, already shows how ridiculous, unscientific and dishonest the whole thing is.

And I didn't even get into the term "cdesign proponentsists".
You should google that one and read about how it originated.

They're not Hovind.

Indeed they aren't.
I got to give credit where credit is due: the folks over at DI are much better at disguising their religious nonsense in a science lab coat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is just a tool of inquiry in my opinion and scientists can be wrong. The claim that Earth is 4.5 billion plus years old is just that, a claim. Is there evidence? A theory couldn't exist if there wasn't, so yes, there is evidence. Is there evidence to the contrary? Yes but the scientific consensus doesn't accept it as reason to abandon their theory on the age of the Earth.

Do you realise that fame and glory in science is reserved for those scientists who prove all their collegues wrong?

A scientist has exactly zero incentive to uphold the status quo. Proving all your collegues wrong, turning fields upside down, disproving widely accepted models.... that's how you make a name for yourself. That's how you win a nobel prize. That's how you get universities, towns, streets, statues, scientific theories / laws named after you. That's how you achieve immortality in name.

Contrast that with dogmatic religious beliefs....
There, upholding the status quo is actually the ultimate goal!
God forbid that you might come to the conlusion that your religious beliefs are wrong!

This is, btw, why creationist organizations have a statement of faith.

This is why you see things like in the Ken Ham - Bill Nye "debate", where both are asked what could convince them of the accuracy of the position of the other side.
Bill Nye's answer: "evidence"
Ken Ham's answer: "nothing"

Creationists pretend to have the answers before even asking the questions.
And if evidence of reality conflict with their religious beliefs, they just assume that the evidence of reality is incorrect - because they have already decided that their religious beliefs MUST be correct.


So to conclude: your statement makes no sense at all.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

According to some medieval priest anyway.

Much more recently than mediaeval. Mediaeval Christianity didn't make nonsensical claims about Genesis literality.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Much more recently than mediaeval. Mediaeval Christianity didn't make nonsensical claims about Genesis liberality.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

I was thinking about James Ussher who's infamous for having "counted" it out using the bible.
But having just looked it up... idd... Ussher did this around 1650. For some reason, I thought it was a few centuries earlier.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I was thinking about James Ussher who's infamous for having "counted" it out using the bible.
But having just looked it up... idd... Ussher did this around 1650. For some reason, I thought it was a few centuries earlier.

I thought of Usher too, and I thought a couple centuries later

 

[Polymath257]

I was thinking about James Ussher who's infamous for having "counted" it out using the bible.
But having just looked it up... idd... Ussher did this around 1650. For some reason, I thought it was a few centuries earlier.

Just think: Ussher was after Galileo and before Newton's Principia.

 

[ecco]

Proving all your collegues wrong, turning fields upside down, disproving widely accepted models.... that's how you make a name for yourself. That's how you win a nobel prize. That's how you get universities, towns, streets, statues, scientific theories / laws named after you. That's how you achieve immortality in name.
Contrast that with dogmatic religious beliefs....
There, upholding the status quo is actually the ultimate goal!

I agree with you in principle. However, the one standout name from the last 1700 years of Christianity is Martin Luther. We know his name because he did go against orthodoxy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you realise that fame and glory in science is reserved for those scientists who prove all their collegues wrong?

A scientist has exactly zero incentive to uphold the status quo. Proving all your collegues wrong, turning fields upside down, disproving widely accepted models.... that's how you make a name for yourself. That's how you win a nobel prize. That's how you get universities, towns, streets, statues, scientific theories / laws named after you. That's how you achieve immortality in name.

Contrast that with dogmatic religious beliefs....
There, upholding the status quo is actually the ultimate goal!
God forbid that you might come to the conlusion that your religious beliefs are wrong!

This is, btw, why creationist organizations have a statement of faith.

This is why you see things like in the Ken Ham - Bill Nye "debate", where both are asked what could convince them of the accuracy of the position of the other side.
Bill Nye's answer: "evidence"
Ken Ham's answer: "nothing"

Creationists pretend to have the answers before even asking the questions.
And if evidence of reality conflict with their religious beliefs, they just assume that the evidence of reality is incorrect - because they have already decided that their religious beliefs MUST be correct.


So to conclude: your statement makes no sense at all.

Please, the fame and glory only comes AFTER years of ridicule, being called a quack, and censorship.

Kristian Birkeland challenged the status quo. He was ridiculed for over 40 years until finally actual in situ data proved him to be correct. only then did those same people that spent years ridiculing him jump on the bandwagon.....

People that clearly understood nothing or else they wouldn't have spent 40 years ridiculing someone then adopt his theory as their own. Birkeland first had to die before he received due credit.... And then they still to this day refuse to use the correct terminology and call them magnetic ropes instead of what they are.... Birkeland Currents.... After close to 100+ years he still can't get the recognition due....

You are fooling yourself if you think an entrenched paradigm lets go easily. It's what led Max Planck to state: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Only then in the majority of cases does one then get the recognition and fame one deserves......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah! Finally. An answer.



Now we are getting down to it. I didn't ignore anything - I posted questions which you finally answered: "None of them are correct."

You based that on the fact that we are moving hither and yon all over the place. What you have continually chosen to ignore is that these instruments are tools to help us understand reality. What you are saying is analogous to saying telescopes and microscopes are "incorrect" because they give the wrong results when trying to read a newspaper from 20 inches away.

But I'll play along a little. With your views how should we post speed limits on highways? Do we need to make the Eastbound posted speeds different from the Westbound speeds to take account of the earth's rotation? Does it make sense to you that the signs should read:

Speed Limit
1060
MPH
-and-
Speed Limit
940
MPH

More accurately:
68,060 and 67,940​

​

What do wheels spinning around on ground have to do with travel in space where no wheels exist????

lets play along..... Someone walking down a spaceship corridor traveling at 1/2 of c would only be moving at 1 mph relative to the spaceship. Which will never negate the spaceships speed of 1/2 of c, or the effects that velocity has on the clocks and rulers and inhabitants of the ship.....

Comprehend. The twin walking along his ship thought he was only walking at 1 mph, yet he aged less. Not because of his speed relative to the ship, but because of the ships speed.....

You can pretend all you like you are walking at 1 mph, but that wont negate the effects of our galaxy accelerating with the expansion of the universe at fractions of c..... any more than the twin thinking he was moving at 1 mph negated the effects of his ship traveling at 1/2 of c....

Oh, yeah - we gotta add in our speed around the center of the galaxy and and and.

To get your true rate of clock change, why yes. but then that's why the twin was younger, despite not seeing his clocks change at all. he thought just like you do and was wrong....

What you are ignoring in my simple earthbound scenario and in the more advanced scenarios that others have presented is that the tools are correct only when used properly. You would misuse them and then argue that they are wrong. Like any other tool, it takes knowledge to use them properly. Think about this one...

A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.​

​

What you are ignoring is that just as the twin could not see the change of rate of his clocks due to his velocity.... so you are unable to see the change of rate of your clocks due to the earth's velocity and the galaxies velocity.... Which is why your simple and more complex scenarios fail to reflect reality, just as the twin could not see the reality that his clocks slowed.....

Cops in moving vehicles do not use a "simple radar gun". They use a radar gun system that takes into consideration the speed and direction of the vehicle they are in. That's based on having the knowledge to use the tools properly.

And the twin thought he was taking into account the golf cart's speed as it moved down his ship, and yet he still aged less due to the speed of his ship, not his golf cart...... his golf cart calibrated for it's movement relative to the ship, but not for the ship itself.... And so he could not deduce from his own clocks that he had aged less....

It's relatively easy for earthbound instruments. It's a helluva lot harder with galactic instruments - ya gotta understand the math.

It's pretty clear from following this thread who understands the maths and who argues against it.

It's exactly the same.... You just keep confusing moving on the earth speeding through space as being different than moving on a ship speeding through space. neither one can see the effects to their own clocks due to their "ships" velocity through space......

It is clear who understands the math and reality. The one that understands the twin ages less because of his ships motion, not because of his perceived motion within or on the ship..... Be that ship a ship speeding through space or the earth itself or the galaxy speeding through space. The only difference is the size of the ship.....

We are in perfect agreement of which one understands the math and who argues against it..... It's only too bad you are the one arguing against it.....

 

[Polymath257]

​

What do wheels spinning around on ground have to do with travel in space where no wheels exist????

lets play along..... Someone walking down a spaceship corridor traveling at 1/2 of c would only be moving at 1 mph relative to the spaceship. Which will never negate the spaceships speed of 1/2 of c, or the effects that velocity has on the clocks and rulers and inhabitants of the ship.....

The spaceship will have a speed of 1/2c with respect to something and 3/4c with respect to something else and 1/10c with respect to something else. Why do you choose one over the other?

Comprehend. The twin walking along his ship thought he was only walking at 1 mph, yet he aged less. Not because of his speed relative to the ship, but because of the ships speed.....

With respect to someone who measures his velocity as 1/2c, the time dilation will be one amount. With respect to someone else who measures the velocity as 3/4c, it will be a different amount. The amount of time dilation depends on *relative* speed. There is no absolute speed.

To get your true rate of clock change, why yes. but then that's why the twin was younger, despite not seeing his clocks change at all. he thought just like you do and was wrong....

Nope, that is NOT why one twin was younger.

Here's a variant of your twin scenario.

Suppose now there are triplets. One (triplet A) is wherever you choose 'not moving' according to you. One (triplet B) is moving past triplet A at 60% of c. The third moves past triplet A at 90% of c. All three are at the same location at some time (as measured by all three). Now, after some time, triplet B speeds up to 99% of c (as measured by A) to catch up with triplet C, who maintains a constant speed as measured by triplet A. At some point they meet up. Which has aged less, triplet B or triplet C?

The answer should be obvious to anyone who understands the usual twin paradox. Can you see easily which one ages less?

Extra credit: how can triplet A determine how much each of the other two has aged?

 

[Astrophile]

Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week. God created an already mature creation with adult humans, mature fruit-bearing trees, and starlight already reaching earth to be appreciated by Adam even though the stars are located billions of light-years away.

The visible stars are not billions of light years away. Our Galaxy is about 100,000 light-years in diameter, and most of the stars that we can see with our unaided eyes are less than 5000 light-years away.