Evidence for an ancient earth

[Polymath257]

Which means that connection is a matter of randomness, but it works for all regardless of one
being good or bad but all can think and memorize, amazing randomness in making a complex connections.

The basic circuits are genetic, but the details are not.

Yes, it is amazing what the natural world can do, isn't it?

 

[FearGod]

The basic circuits are genetic, but the details are not.

Yes, it is amazing what the natural world can do, isn't it?

If you want to believe so, then it's

 

[BilliardsBall]

[snip]I have shown that the laws of physics relevant to radioactivity worked for the last 13.8 billion years and have not changed at all with time.[/snip]

I would argue for a young Earth inside a far older universe.

 

[viole]

[snip]I have shown that the laws of physics relevant to radioactivity worked for the last 13.8 billion years and have not changed at all with time.[/snip]

I would argue for a young Earth inside a far older universe.

What did this far older Universe contain before the earth was created. Stars maybe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here? We see what is known as Self-Righteous Judgemental Attitude. I'm kinda tired of it, myself.

The above post presumes to not only read my mind? It presumes to know everything about what I think... !

I was talking about many atheists who flatly refuse to acknowledge their beliefs as such, but I apologize for tarring you with the same brush!

So what things would you say are included in your atheist beliefs?

 

[sayak83]

[snip]I have shown that the laws of physics relevant to radioactivity worked for the last 13.8 billion years and have not changed at all with time.[/snip]

I would argue for a young Earth inside a far older universe.

I have provided evidence based on radioactive decay half lives of elements in the rocks of the earth, that significant parts of the earth are billions of years old.
Evidence for an ancient earth

Thousands of data points taken from all over the world using multiple methods of science provide consistent evidence of rock ages that are billions of years old, and knowing these ages of formation are important for locating mineral resources.

How do you propose to refute this evidence?

 

[Jose Fly]

First, the different theories were proposed to explain the evidence available at the time. As we gained more evidence, we were able to show some of them to be wrong. That is how science works.

Rather tedious to have to keep repeating this simple, basic fact to creationists, isn't it? And that most of them never do get it makes it all the more frustrating.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What did this far older Universe contain before the earth was created. Stars maybe?

Ciao

- viole

You ask if I haven't looked at Genesis 100 times, and also 100 times more intently than you have!

If the Earth is located near the original "center" of the BB expansion, thousands of years of time could have occurred here while billions of years of time occurred on the "edge". It's called relativity.

 

[Polymath257]

You ask if I haven't looked at Genesis 100 times, and also 100 times more intently than you have!

If the Earth is located near the original "center" of the BB expansion, thousands of years of time could have occurred here while billions of years of time occurred on the "edge". It's called relativity.

Um, no. Relativity doesn't work like that. Because of the velocity differences, we would expect the distant galaxies to have aged *less* than the Earth (they are in motion with respect to the Earth). That effect is canceled out because of curvature effects, but you have your relativity exactly wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have provided evidence based on radioactive decay half lives of elements in the rocks of the earth, that significant parts of the earth are billions of years old.
Evidence for an ancient earth

Thousands of data points taken from all over the world using multiple methods of science provide consistent evidence of rock ages that are billions of years old, and knowing these ages of formation are important for locating mineral resources.

How do you propose to refute this evidence?

Diamonds are awesome!

"Dr. Baumgardner was featured in U.S. News and World Report20 as the world’s leading expert on supercomputer simulations of plate tectonics.21 His carbon-14 studies were done as part of a group of physicists and geologists investigating Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, the RATE team.

...Baumgardner also found carbon-14 in deep earth diamonds from seven African mines! The seven RATE team scientists found other results just as dramatic in studies of radioactive decay involving uranium, polonium, rubidium-strontium isochrons, helium diffusion, etc. The results of their eight-year research project have been published in two technical volumes for specialists in the appropriate scientific fields,22 but they have also been made available to scientifically interested laymen in book and DVD form as Thousands . . . Not Billions.23 If only the academic mind could be opened a crack (and its heart freed from fear of ridicule), there would be in these references a feast for the soul (and God at the door)." - Source "How Fast?" - How Fast?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Um, no. Relativity doesn't work like that. Because of the velocity differences, we would expect the distant galaxies to have aged *less* than the Earth (they are in motion with respect to the Earth). That effect is canceled out because of curvature effects, but you have your relativity exactly wrong.

Very good use of the "man in rocket returns to Earth to find his grandkids dead" principle! However, light and time teach what about the Earth/Solar System being in relative motion to those galaxies? If you are at the point of observation of the most distant galaxies, what is the age of the Earth, do you think?

 

[Jose Fly]

Diamonds are awesome!

"Dr. Baumgardner was featured in U.S. News and World Report20 as the world’s leading expert on supercomputer simulations of plate tectonics.21 His carbon-14 studies were done as part of a group of physicists and geologists investigating Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, the RATE team.

...Baumgardner also found carbon-14 in deep earth diamonds from seven African mines! The seven RATE team scientists found other results just as dramatic in studies of radioactive decay involving uranium, polonium, rubidium-strontium isochrons, helium diffusion, etc. The results of their eight-year research project have been published in two technical volumes for specialists in the appropriate scientific fields,22 but they have also been made available to scientifically interested laymen in book and DVD form as Thousands . . . Not Billions.23 If only the academic mind could be opened a crack (and its heart freed from fear of ridicule), there would be in these references a feast for the soul (and God at the door)." - Source "How Fast?" - How Fast?

You cite two "interesting" sources there.

First is "Answers in Genesis", which has all their employees sign their Statement of Faith, which includes...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ​

That is the exact opposite of science. So in an attempt to discuss a scientific matter you cite a decidedly ant-scientific source.

Second is "RATE", a group that some scientists have interacted with. An Evening with RATE.

I did have an interesting conversation saturday morning with RATE coordinator, Larry Vardiman, who seems like a pretty decent guy. I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-earth geochronologists in the world. He also agreed that the mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a “cosmic-scale event” or miracle. He further conceded that at this point they have no physical evidence for this miracle. Apparently, dissipation of the heat produced during the event is, in the end, going to require yet an additional miracle.​

And specific to Baumgardner.....

I asked the panel (Humphreys, Snelling, Baumgardner) a slight variation of the question you suggested: Why did John Baumgardner and the RATE group accept $2.5 million dollars in private donations to conduct young-earth research at the same time Baumgardner was publishing old-earth and old-moon papers in mainstream scientific journals? I thought this was a particularly relevant question because Baumgardner’s first slide in his morning talk read: “News Flash: paradigm overturned; textbooks need to be rewritten, earth is young, etc.” The crowd went wild. Of course, they had no idea Baumgardner was at the same time personally contributing to the mountain of evidence that the earth and moon are old. Baumgardner stumbled and bumbled with his response, saying things such as his coauthors input faulty assumptions into his Terra code and that the interpretations were therefore incorrect, but that the physics (his contribution) was correct. He then went into a ten minute soul-searching monologue about his faith in scripture, which is fine, but hardly seemed relevant. I pressed further and asked if he would write letters to Nature and JGR clarifying his position and the errors in the assumptions and interpretations made by his coauthors. He would not agree to do this and surprisingly revealed that at least one more old earth paper is coming out in the near future with his name on it. Well, after the Q & A session Humphreys called me “evil” for asking such a question (I thought it was a valid question, but Humphreys apparently didn’t and I don’t think he is a very nice man).​

So yeah...."interesting" sources you have there. One has to wonder.....if young-earth creationism is the truth, why do its advocates have to resort to dishonesty so frequently?

 

[sayak83]

You ask if I haven't looked at Genesis 100 times, and also 100 times more intently than you have!

If the Earth is located near the original "center" of the BB expansion, thousands of years of time could have occurred here while billions of years of time occurred on the "edge". It's called relativity.

There is no center of the Big Bang expansion. Observational cosmology refutes this directly. The universe has been established to be both homogeneous and isotropic with respect to each and every point within it. No expansion process that has a specific center from which expansion starts can recreate these features of the universe. Check out the link below:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmological Principle
Isotropy means there are no special directions to the Universe, homogeneous means there are no special places in the Universe.
Notice that isotropy for all observers (all places in the Universe) implies homogeneity for all observers. It is possible to construct universes that are homogeneous but anisotropic; the reverse, however, is not possible. Consider an observer who is surrounded by a matter distribution that is perceived to be isotropic; this means not only that the mass density is a function of radius only, but that there can be no preferred axis for other physical attributes such as the velocity field.

An isotropic Universe also means that there is no `center' to the Universe. The rotation of the Earth produces a unique orientation (i.e. north and south poles), but the Universe appears the same from any position. This is an important point when we consider the origin of the Universe known as the Big Bang. Due to isotropy, there is no `place' where the Big Bang occurred, there is no center point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, Big Bang is the expansion of space itself, and not the moving away of objects from each other through space. The principles of special relativity apply only is objects are moving through space from point A to point B at very high speeds. It does not apply when space itself is expanding and objects (galaxies etc) are simply going along with that expansion of space. The distant galaxies are actually moving no faster than our own through space and hence time ticks at nearly equal rates in distant galaxies as well.


Basically standard physics, validated by observations. Details-
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

Thus your idea is wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Very good use of the "man in rocket returns to Earth to find his grandkids dead" principle! However, light and time teach what about the Earth/Solar System being in relative motion to those galaxies? If you are at the point of observation of the most distant galaxies, what is the age of the Earth, do you think?

Because of the symmetry in the system, the age of the Earth as seen from the distant galaxies is exactly the same as the age of those galaxies as seen from Earth. Neither is experiencing an acceleration with respect to space, so the twin paradox solution doesn't apply.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no center of the Big Bang expansion. Observational cosmology refutes this directly. The universe has been established to be both homogeneous and isotropic with respect to each and every point within it. No expansion process that has a specific center from which expansion starts can recreate these features of the universe.

It really is amazing how many have trouble with this basic fact.

Once again: there is no center for the Big Bang expansion: every point in space looks like every other point.

 

[sayak83]

Diamonds are awesome!

"Dr. Baumgardner was featured in U.S. News and World Report20 as the world’s leading expert on supercomputer simulations of plate tectonics.21 His carbon-14 studies were done as part of a group of physicists and geologists investigating Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, the RATE team.

...Baumgardner also found carbon-14 in deep earth diamonds from seven African mines! The seven RATE team scientists found other results just as dramatic in studies of radioactive decay involving uranium, polonium, rubidium-strontium isochrons, helium diffusion, etc. The results of their eight-year research project have been published in two technical volumes for specialists in the appropriate scientific fields,22 but they have also been made available to scientifically interested laymen in book and DVD form as Thousands . . . Not Billions.23 If only the academic mind could be opened a crack (and its heart freed from fear of ridicule), there would be in these references a feast for the soul (and God at the door)." - Source "How Fast?" - How Fast?

The RATE project's findings have been clearly and comprehensively debunked. I am completely happy to discuss any of its findings and to show why there is irrefutable evidence that all its findings and conclusions are false and why the entire science community has rejected it. Furthermore it tries to suggest that rates of nuclear decay (and hence the weak nuclear force laws) were vastly vastly different in early times....for which not only there is no evidence, but there are tons of evidence showing that the laws of physics have not changed in the last 14 billion yeas...which I alluded to in my first posts.
Which finding of RATE do you wish to discuss first?

One sample refutation which I can go into in detail.
http://www.reasons.org/files/HeliumDiffusionZirconTechnicalpPaper.pdf

 

[ChristineM]

You ask if I haven't looked at Genesis 100 times, and also 100 times more intently than you have!

If the Earth is located near the original "center" of the BB expansion, thousands of years of time could have occurred here while billions of years of time occurred on the "edge". It's called relativity.

There is no centre of the big bang, or more precisely, everywhere is the centre.

Where is the centre of the universe?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You cite two "interesting" sources there.

First is "Answers in Genesis", which has all their employees sign their Statement of Faith, which includes...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ​

That is the exact opposite of science. So in an attempt to discuss a scientific matter you cite a decidedly ant-scientific source.

Second is "RATE", a group that some scientists have interacted with. An Evening with RATE.

I did have an interesting conversation saturday morning with RATE coordinator, Larry Vardiman, who seems like a pretty decent guy. I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-earth geochronologists in the world. He also agreed that the mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a “cosmic-scale event” or miracle. He further conceded that at this point they have no physical evidence for this miracle. Apparently, dissipation of the heat produced during the event is, in the end, going to require yet an additional miracle.​

And specific to Baumgardner.....

I asked the panel (Humphreys, Snelling, Baumgardner) a slight variation of the question you suggested: Why did John Baumgardner and the RATE group accept $2.5 million dollars in private donations to conduct young-earth research at the same time Baumgardner was publishing old-earth and old-moon papers in mainstream scientific journals? I thought this was a particularly relevant question because Baumgardner’s first slide in his morning talk read: “News Flash: paradigm overturned; textbooks need to be rewritten, earth is young, etc.” The crowd went wild. Of course, they had no idea Baumgardner was at the same time personally contributing to the mountain of evidence that the earth and moon are old. Baumgardner stumbled and bumbled with his response, saying things such as his coauthors input faulty assumptions into his Terra code and that the interpretations were therefore incorrect, but that the physics (his contribution) was correct. He then went into a ten minute soul-searching monologue about his faith in scripture, which is fine, but hardly seemed relevant. I pressed further and asked if he would write letters to Nature and JGR clarifying his position and the errors in the assumptions and interpretations made by his coauthors. He would not agree to do this and surprisingly revealed that at least one more old earth paper is coming out in the near future with his name on it. Well, after the Q & A session Humphreys called me “evil” for asking such a question (I thought it was a valid question, but Humphreys apparently didn’t and I don’t think he is a very nice man).​

So yeah...."interesting" sources you have there. One has to wonder.....if young-earth creationism is the truth, why do its advocates have to resort to dishonesty so frequently?

Are you saying Baumgardner didn't find Carbon-14 in diamonds? Are you saying no one has?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no center of the Big Bang expansion. Observational cosmology refutes this directly. The universe has been established to be both homogeneous and isotropic with respect to each and every point within it. No expansion process that has a specific center from which expansion starts can recreate these features of the universe. Check out the link below:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmological Principle
Isotropy means there are no special directions to the Universe, homogeneous means there are no special places in the Universe.
Notice that isotropy for all observers (all places in the Universe) implies homogeneity for all observers. It is possible to construct universes that are homogeneous but anisotropic; the reverse, however, is not possible. Consider an observer who is surrounded by a matter distribution that is perceived to be isotropic; this means not only that the mass density is a function of radius only, but that there can be no preferred axis for other physical attributes such as the velocity field.

An isotropic Universe also means that there is no `center' to the Universe. The rotation of the Earth produces a unique orientation (i.e. north and south poles), but the Universe appears the same from any position. This is an important point when we consider the origin of the Universe known as the Big Bang. Due to isotropy, there is no `place' where the Big Bang occurred, there is no center point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, Big Bang is the expansion of space itself, and not the moving away of objects from each other through space. The principles of special relativity apply only is objects are moving through space from point A to point B at very high speeds. It does not apply when space itself is expanding and objects (galaxies etc) are simply going along with that expansion of space. The distant galaxies are actually moving no faster than our own through space and hence time ticks at nearly equal rates in distant galaxies as well.


Basically standard physics, validated by observations. Details-
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

Thus your idea is wrong.

The idea is wrong, certainly, if we are all on that "balloon's" surface. This remains unproven and conjectural.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because of the symmetry in the system, the age of the Earth as seen from the distant galaxies is exactly the same as the age of those galaxies as seen from Earth. Neither is experiencing an acceleration with respect to space, so the twin paradox solution doesn't apply.

Another post--unsurprising--someone should tell all cosmologists we're done and we're all on the balloon's outer surface. No. Thanks for explaining the symmetry of the universe, which I missed, when I first noticed we have never seen an edge or end (the + on the 14.6B+).

I call baloney.