Evidence for an ancient earth

[FearGod]

The problem with your view? Is that your god is exactly this:

<a woman is being attacked--brutally-- a policeman is standing nearby>

Woman, to policeman: "Help! I'm being attacked!"

Policeman (indifferent): "Be strong! Hang in there! I'm right here!"

Woman: "Aren't you going to do anything?"

Policeman: "Oh, certainly! Once he has killed you, and later on, dies of natural causes, I'm gonna punish his azz, You Betcha! So, Hang In There-- Be Strong! It will be over soon.... "

Woman: "!!!!"

Policeman: "sooon. The pain will stop sooon..."

Woman: <arrrg> <dies>

<policeman walks away> <attacker leaves the scene, and goes on to murder 20 more people>

Why the prophet fought the oppressors if God doesn't care? why he asked to help and support the
poor if he doesn't care? why he asked to search for knowledge if he doesn't care?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why the prophet fought the oppressors if God doesn't care? why he asked to help and support the
poor if he doesn't care? why he asked to search for knowledge if he doesn't care?

A failure to Act, when Action Is Possible? Is 100% proof that the being in question DOES NOT CARE.

Or worse? Delights at the suffering of mortals.

Indeed: The bible seems to say that over and over: mainly due to so much suffering because bible-god refuses to act.

But wait! It is much worse. When bible-god does act? 9 times out of 10, it is the innocent that suffer...

Take the infamous story of Moses and the Pharaoh. Is Pharaoh ever punished? Only in the end. Most of the time, those that suffer the most-- have nothing to do with the circumstances, and are powerless to affect Pharaoh's actions.

The worst of all, is when biblegod's agent, murders all the first-born-- most of whom (statistically speaking) would have been babies. Even the bible calls babies innocents.


No, the bible's god is either an uncaring monster? Or a sadistic monster-- likely both


(it's a really good thing that the bible's god is also 100% myth... isn't it? )

 

[Polymath257]

I don't object to mathematics. For example, human population until recently has doubled every 125 years. Have you extrapolated backward to see how long ago there were 8 persons on Earth?

Unlike radioactive decay rates, we *know* that human growth rates have changed *greatly* over time. In particular, there was a huge increase when food supplies increased due to the industrial revolution. Family sizes have changed over time as well as survival rates.

What is absent from your presentation is the startling fact that those studying spectrometry go to school for six years--to learn how events like solar flares alter the "expected" readings and extrapolations until things line up okay. You have scientists who rely on a subset of science disciplines who turn to a group-within-a-group to report as in your presentation above.

Your uniformitarian presentation went like this: Physics has always worked the same since the Big Bang expansion (not because of inductive observation over billions of years but because of extrapolations of observed phenomena). The universe is 14.6B+ and so on... okay, I concur. Part II is far more problematic: We assume the Earth has had constants regarding temperature, pressure, etc. and extrapolate backwards. Catastrophes occurred, sure, causing mass extinctions, but couldn't possibly be throwing off our uniformitarian assumptions regarding decay of elements and etc.

Yes, there have been many catastrophes in the Earth's history. But to get radioactive elements to change their decay rate is incredibly hard to do. Unless you have temperatures in the millions of degrees to allow collisions to overcome the Coulomb barrier, you simply don't get major changes in decay rates. Nothing that has happened on Earth in the last 4 billion years will affect the nucleus of the atoms enough to significantly change the rates, let along change them by factors of hundreds to millions.

Carbon dating is the one that is different because it is dependent on the rate of production of C14 in the upper atmosphere. Because we do not know how the production rates change over time (because of solar activity, say), we have to correlate C14 with another dating system to get accurate dates.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm aware that telescopes capture the past and that all moves in time. I'm likewise aware that we don't yet know if the universe is flat or curved, infinite or finite. You further said the balloon is expanding into a three-d space, when Cartesian space itself curves due to gravity and spacetime, when the "vacuum" is filled with energy and etc.

We're not "done" with the balloon description and the jury's still out. What makes skeptics comfortable is being "done" with cosmology when years ago it was Steady State that was proven wrong (although Conservation of Matter/Energy alone should have done for it). What makes skeptics uncomfortable is that cosmology at some point becomes metaphysics, matter/energy from nothing into a vaccum energy void.

Once again, you are not understanding the balloon analogy. The balloon expands along the radial direction. The universe expands along the time direction. This happens whether the universe is flat or curved.

The current evidence is that it is very, very close to being flat, by the way.

 

[sayak83]

I don't object to mathematics. For example, human population until recently has doubled every 125 years. Have you extrapolated backward to see how long ago there were 8 persons on Earth?

Radioactive decay is an ironclad law of physics that has remained constant over the last 14 billion years. The constancy of this law was verified when I showed, in my very first post, that one can calculate the expected concentration of the elements created in the first 4 minutes after the Big Bang even though the temperature at those conditions were billions of degree Kelvin to millions of degree Kelvin.

And these predictions, made from the laws of physics alone so far back in time and under such extreme conditions have been validated by observations.

In contrast, there is no constant laws of physics in the mathematics of population growth and decay. Population growth rate is determined by the logistics equation. If N is the population at a given time then:-
Rate of Population Growth (dN/dt) = r*N where r is the intrinsic rate of population increase given by r = log(R) where R is the number of offsprings per individual in the population. This gives us an exponentially increasing rate of population growth, but only when there is no constraints on food, living space, disease and predation, and other resources. Thus the intrinsic rate itself varies depending on both the environment and the population size.
The maximum number of adults of a species that a habitat can support is called it carrying capacity and is called K. This gives us the actual growth equation called the
logistic equation:-
dN/dt = r*N*[(K-N)/K]
where (K-N)/K is the fraction of the environment that can still be exploited to sustain additional adults.

Thus for a given value of K, one gets a typical S shaped curve of population with time. Here is an example for the population growth and stabilization of insect population in an environment with limited food. Note how peak population scales with carrying capacity.

Human beings, by their technology and medicine and agricultural advancements have repeatedly increased the degree to which they can exploit natural resources and hence increased the carrying capacity K. The carrying capacity has increased over several episodes in human history (agricultural revolution, urbanization and finally industrial revolution) and human growth rate has followed the expected logistic curve associated with each increase in K.

Thus, as you can see, we know what controls population growth rates, why it is not linear or constant and we can use the validated mathematical theories appropriate for population dynamics to predict and explain population growths that we see in either human society or in ecology.
There is no analogy that can be drawn between radioactive decay rates and population growth and collapse rates. Both are well explained through DIFFERENT but well validated theories of science (one physics, the other ecology).

So...how do you justify drawing parallels between the two when science shows that they have no similarity?

What is absent from your presentation is the startling fact that those studying spectrometry go to school for six years--to learn how events like solar flares alter the "expected" readings and extrapolations until things line up okay. You have scientists who rely on a subset of science disciplines who turn to a group-within-a-group to report as in your presentation above.

Instead of making claims that there exists some "startling facts", please present them here so that we can have a discussion.

Your uniformitarian presentation went like this: Physics has always worked the same since the Big Bang expansion (not because of inductive observation over billions of years but because of extrapolations of observed phenomena). The universe is 14.6B+ and so on... okay, I concur. Part II is far more problematic: We assume the Earth has had constants regarding temperature, pressure, etc. and extrapolate backwards. Catastrophes occurred, sure, causing mass extinctions, but couldn't possibly be throwing off our uniformitarian assumptions regarding decay of elements and etc.

No. There has been no extrapolation whatsoever. I have provided actual observational evidence that demonstrates the constancy of the laws of physics under very very extreme temperature and pressure ranges of early Big Bang environments (more extreme than the interior of sun). Even millions of Kelvins of temperature have been shown to be not enough to alter these laws of physics. But, more than that, since a basalt rock will simply melt at temperatures between 1000 C and 600 C, and since the time being measured is the time since last solidification i.e. the time since that specific rock and crystals within it have not been subjected to temperatures more than 500 C, which is very modest and has no effect whatsoever in decay constants. So, for example, rocks that were directly hit by a large meteorite (or an atomic bomb) would simply vaporize away. Once they condense out into new rocks, the time in these rocks will be time since they condensed back and hence will be from after the catastrophic vaporization event.

So no, what you are proposing has not happened to these rocks that are being dated by radiometric techniques.

 

[sayak83]

About four people jumped in to share balloon theory. We don't know if the universe is flat or curved positively or negatively, finite or infinite. At some point as we discussed, cosmology becomes conjectural, almost metaphysical and not physical.

However, I'm comfortable accepting the Big Bang theory, just not balloon conjecture. It remains there are several interesting hypotheses for a young Solar System and an old universe:

If we are not pinned on the balloon's edge (pinned on the balloon is different than the balloon theory, which would make the galaxies and other objects expand and not just space expand) but near the center, what you expect? Things moving at the same speed away from the center in all Cartesian directions. Looking at some background temperature changes is not very conclusive for me!

Ok, all of this has to do with the subject of topology. Here is the briefest and simplest explanation I could find anywhere as to why the universe:-

1) Does not have an edge or center
2) Is not expanding into anything
3) Can still be finite or curved and homogeneously expanding everywhere.

 

[FearGod]

A failure to Act, when Action Is Possible? Is 100% proof that the being in question DOES NOT CARE.

Or worse? Delights at the suffering of mortals.

Indeed: The bible seems to say that over and over: mainly due to so much suffering because bible-god refuses to act.

But wait! It is much worse. When bible-god does act? 9 times out of 10, it is the innocent that suffer...

Take the infamous story of Moses and the Pharaoh. Is Pharaoh ever punished? Only in the end. Most of the time, those that suffer the most-- have nothing to do with the circumstances, and are powerless to affect Pharaoh's actions.

The worst of all, is when biblegod's agent, murders all the first-born-- most of whom (statistically speaking) would have been babies. Even the bible calls babies innocents.


No, the bible's god is either an uncaring monster? Or a sadistic monster-- likely both


(it's a really good thing that the bible's god is also 100% myth... isn't it? )

If this is the work of nature whether caused by humans or natural things then why to oppress
the next generations, why we let them coming?

 

[ChristineM]

1. We don't know if the universe is flat or curved, finite or infinite.

2. As Einstein explained, we cannot tell from local measurements if we are moving. If you are near the center of the explosion, everything would be moving away from you at the same speeds.

1/ Yes we do, it is flat measured to 5 decimal places
That of course indicates it is potentially infinite, however our universe has existed for a finite time and is 3 dimensional both of which present apparent paradox The Universe Is Flat — Now What?

2a/ You misunderstood Einstein.
2b/ The universe did not explode
2c/ That's relativity for ya. Causing another apparent paradox. Say you are standing on point b, point a is moving from you at .75 the speed of light. In the opposite direction point c is moving away from you at .75 the speed of light. Which fits perfectly with the understanding that nothing can travel faster than light. Now consider you are standing on point c. From there you can see your old vantage point b receding at 0.75 times the speed of light. From point c and in the same direction as point b you would expect to see point a... but it it travelling from you at 1.5 times the speed of light meaning a/ it's light will never reach you and b/ point a is travelling faster than light. That's relativity in a paragraph.

 

[Polymath257]

1. We don't know if the universe is flat or curved, finite or infinite.

It is very close to being flat.

2. As Einstein explained, we cannot tell from local measurements if we are moving. If you are near the center of the explosion, everything would be moving away from you at the same speeds.

According the the Big Bang model, no matter where you are, you would see everything moving away from you. There is no center. Every point sees the same expansion away.

 

[ChristineM]

So. If your hideous monster-god exists? It is deliberately and with malice, allowing the 'hitlers' of the world to be born and muck up the innocent for no reason?

That is one monster you believe in-- a whole new level of depravity.

I spotted a quote today that seems very apt... If you think a new born baby is a siner, please do not come to me telling me how great your religion is

 

[ChristineM]

It is very close to being flat.



According the the Big Bang model, no matter where you are, you would see everything moving away from you. There is no center. Every point sees the same expansion away.

It seems BilliardsBall is labouring under several misapprehensions regarding the universe

 

[Polymath257]

I'm aware that telescopes capture the past and that all moves in time. I'm likewise aware that we don't yet know if the universe is flat or curved, infinite or finite. You further said the balloon is expanding into a three-d space, when Cartesian space itself curves due to gravity and spacetime, when the "vacuum" is filled with energy and etc.

We're not "done" with the balloon description and the jury's still out. What makes skeptics comfortable is being "done" with cosmology when years ago it was Steady State that was proven wrong (although Conservation of Matter/Energy alone should have done for it). What makes skeptics uncomfortable is that cosmology at some point becomes metaphysics, matter/energy from nothing into a vaccum energy void.

There isn't a 'balloon theory'. There is a 'balloon analogy'. it is supposed to be an aide to your understanding the ideas involved. Clearly, in your case, it hasn't helped. If you want to details, go look up the Friedman-Lemaitre-Walker description of the 4-dimensional metric involved. If you wish to learn enough calculus, vector space, differential equations and differential geometry to understand this, just ask. I can directy you to a sequence of good books. If you don't want to learn about this, take the analogy as an analogy and let it go.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems BilliardsBall is labouring under several misapprehensions regarding the universe

Let's face it. Most people don't really grasp even the basic ideas related to an expanding universe. The concept of flat versus curved space, let alone curved spacetime is quite beyond them.

 

[ChristineM]

Let's face it. Most people don't really grasp even the basic ideas related to an expanding universe. The concept of flat versus curved space, let alone curved spacetime is quite beyond them.

That's funny, cosmology is a subject that i find very easy to comprehend and find it hard to believe so many don't get it, It's as though a bronze age mindset is a barrier to understanding

 

[Polymath257]

That's funny, cosmology is a subject that i find very easy to comprehend and find it hard to believe so many don't get it, It's as though a bronze age mindset is a barrier to understanding

Well, that is hardly a revelation.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If this is the work of nature whether caused by humans or natural things then why to oppress
the next generations, why we let them coming?

The above does not absolve the FACT that if your claims [about your god] are accurate?

Your god is pure evil, selfish and unworthy of the title.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I spotted a quote today that seems very apt... If you think a new born baby is a siner, please do not come to me telling me how great your religion is

Agreed. The very basic idea of "we are born into sin" has got to be one of the most insidiously evil ideas ever fabricated by humans--- to use as a billy-club against other humans.

"Papa, why do we hate the Zebudites again?"

"Because they are evil, son. They were born evil, so we must hate them."

"That seems unfair, papa."

"Life is unfair, son. Now go and help your sister light that bonfire."

"Yes, papa...."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because most of the time they're just anecdotes, along the lines of "Back in 1887 John Smith reported finding a human skull in a coal seam. No one else reported it, the skull cannot be located, and Mr. Smith is long since dead."

Okay, most of the time. How could it be that even one 4-million-year-old hominid is inside "300-million-year-old" coal? One.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Unlike radioactive decay rates, we *know* that human growth rates have changed *greatly* over time. In particular, there was a huge increase when food supplies increased due to the industrial revolution. Family sizes have changed over time as well as survival rates.




Yes, there have been many catastrophes in the Earth's history. But to get radioactive elements to change their decay rate is incredibly hard to do. Unless you have temperatures in the millions of degrees to allow collisions to overcome the Coulomb barrier, you simply don't get major changes in decay rates. Nothing that has happened on Earth in the last 4 billion years will affect the nucleus of the atoms enough to significantly change the rates, let along change them by factors of hundreds to millions.

Carbon dating is the one that is different because it is dependent on the rate of production of C14 in the upper atmosphere. Because we do not know how the production rates change over time (because of solar activity, say), we have to correlate C14 with another dating system to get accurate dates.

Huh? Take a look at the actual historical (best estimate) records of world population for as far back as we can than extrapolate. Doubles approximately every 125 years. I can't help that 8 people 5,000 years ago doesn't fit your worldview but fits mine to a T.

And I never said "changes rates of decay". Those rates are constant, but things like sunspots can significantly throw off dates, so mass spectrometrists spend six years learning how to "adjust" anomalies until everything fits uniformitarian assumptions regarding dates.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, you are not understanding the balloon analogy. The balloon expands along the radial direction. The universe expands along the time direction. This happens whether the universe is flat or curved.

The current evidence is that it is very, very close to being flat, by the way.

I'm aware that the prevailing but not confirmed views are flat and infinite.

I'm aware that we cannot take local measurements while sensing our own movement.

I'm aware that the balloon expands while spacetime expands and that matter is pinned to the balloon, not painted on the balloon, otherwise all galaxies would be expanding, too. (Draw a face on a balloon than inflate the balloon to see what I mean).

What I'm further aware of is that we can have a young solar system and an old universe without every piece of the universe (including the local system) fitting your uniformitarian time assumptions.

Ever Google "Evidence the sun is only 10,000 years old" for example?