Evidence for an ancient earth

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Who lied? What is their motivation?

Money. That is ample motivation for people--- especially people selling religious woo.


"There is money to be made in them, thare hills: if you have the stomach for it-- people will buy anything that makes their Sacred Cows have the semblance of 'not stupid'. "

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, I've done the math in Excel several times. Try it! Takes about 60 seconds.

You lie when you set up the conditions. You lie when you apply the false constants. And very likely, you lie when you apply the maths--- but I could be wrong-- you may simply have been lied *to*-- and you didn't bother to check, because the lies fit with what you like to pretend is real.

I can "prove" using "math" that the Stock Market responds directly to the length of women's skirts above (or below) the knee. But I'd be wrong, of course-- the Stock Market and Women's Skirt-length have nothing to do with one another.

Hint: If you use creationist websites? You are using lying non-facts. Not one creationist website-- NOT ONE-- is capable of using actual facts. They lie because they must. There is zero science that supports creationism. None. Nada. Not one fact, jot or tiddle supports creationism. In the entire world. So they lie instead.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Carbon dating is not the only dating method.

It's also almost never used to date fossils, as by definition, fossils are mineralized remains-- and to become mineralized, you need rather a long time, typically millions of years.

Carbon Dating is only good back 50,000 years or less-- typically, much-much less.

Which is why you seldom see it referenced by actual geologists... carbon dating is an archeologists' tool--one of many.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It would have had to have no mass, of course, since a spot of near-infinite mass could have never expanded without God's aid.

Aaaaand you are wrong on a whole new level. Your comment is what is called Fractal Wrongness:

You are wrong at every level it is possible to be wrong, no matter how fine one looks.

The original singularity had no mass-- mass would have been impossible, at that stage. Dr Hawking goes over this very very well, in several of his most excellent talks. They are quite accessible to even the most noob math-deprived.

One of the best, was his rather lengthy series Into The Universe, where he explains the Big Bang model.

Hint: there is zero need for the god-hypothesis at any stage in the process.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Wow, your god is in a very small (no pun intended) box.

I have no gods-- small or otherwise. Not even one as tiny as the one you imagine. (we know yours is tiny, because it's principle property, is to work in mysterious, ineffective and breathtakingly cruel ways... think of all the things you would do to help the world, if you were god for an hour.... and marvel at the fact that your teeny little godling has done none of them...)

I respect those scientists who see the issues with ex nihilo and say there could be another universe leaking into here like a white hole or even multiverse(s).

That just further eliminates the need for godlings and other ineffective things.

You are smart enough to know if string theory is so, there are seven dimensions beyond spacetime. Which one do you think Heaven might exist in? Be consistent. Be rationalist.

Only seven? According to ... who? You? And even is there is-- does it affect us in any meaningful way?

We are simple three dimensional beings sliding down the path of time-- a path we cannot slow, reverse or halt.

As for the myth that is ... "heaven"? I have seen pretty much all the descriptions, according to the very best "holey" books.

And they are each-- utterly without fail-- hellish to anyone who is rational. Mainly because they are all infinite-- and anything for eternity is hellish in a short time.

The sole exception is Nihilism, according to certain flavors of Eastern Philosophies. There is an appeal of infinite oblivion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry? Been too many days, and I am clueless about what you are right about..... that's okay. I'm nearly 60 this year, and my grey matter is clogged with too much experience.

My fault for the late response. Yes it seems like we can remember things far more easily when we are young, and still have all that unused memory space!

It's also annoying when important things get lost, while I still can't erase any of the stuff I want to!

But I think my point was about the beliefs of atheists, the real ones, not the semantic definitions.., we all believe in something, what do you believe?

 

[ChristineM]

It's also almost never used to date fossils, as by definition, fossils are mineralized remains-- and to become mineralized, you need rather a long time, typically millions of years.

Carbon Dating is only good back 50,000 years or less-- typically, much-much less.

Which is why you seldom see it referenced by actual geologists... carbon dating is an archeologists' tool--one of many.

It is, now if only certain creationists could understand this rather than slagging the process because he is clueless to its date range and other more suitable dating method's

 

[ChristineM]

My fault for the late response. Yes it seems like we can remember things far more easily when we are young, and still have all that unused memory space!

It's also annoying when important things get lost, while I still can't erase any of the stuff I want to!

But I think my point was about the beliefs of atheists, the real ones, not the semantic definitions.., we all believe in something, what do you believe?

I'm pretty sure about Bob and I'm certain about me. My belief in in myself, and even that is open to question.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm pretty sure about Bob and I'm certain about me. My belief in in myself, and even that is open to question.

For me everything is open to question! But we both know where our money is, we all have our best guesses regarding the big questions.

Our beliefs only become off limits to scrutiny, when we deny that they are even beliefs- aka blind faith

 

[BilliardsBall]

From that website: "We have a Biblical viewpoint on the world." About

That automatically makes anything they say suspect and in desperate need of outside verification.

There "About" statement is actual admission, that they will deliberately and with forethought, "adjust" any and all "findings" to match with this pre-concieved "conclusion".

The entire site can therefore, be simply dismissed as being 100% devoid of facts.

That does not follow for several reasons:

1. The biases are stated up front, proudly, which helps exclude confirmatory bias.

2. I have the same biases--but they are logic-based (I've known God for so long, and His Word for so long, I give the Word the benefit of the doubt).

3. This does not follow, either implied or inferred: "There "About" statement is actual admission, that they will deliberately and with forethought, "adjust" any and all "findings" to match with this pre-concieved "conclusion"."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nor is it mean to be, it is a simple demonstration to give an insight into this concept of space time expanding. You understanding of the difference between an analogy and reality is not required.

However the expansion of the universe is measured in several different ways as have been shown to you over the past couple of weeks, perhaps longer. That you ignore the evidence and keep repeating the same old mantra of denial is hardly anyone's fault but your own?

Let's try to agree and make peace!

The isotropic and homogeneous universe does not preclude Genesis being true:

First, if our locality is in a gravity well (consider the Pioneer Problem, for example) then time dilation could make faraway light indeed be billions of years old while the Solar System was created more recently.

Second, the Big Bang and modern cosmology still has a time/light issue – the Horizon Problem.

Put another way, we can see that both Genesis and Big Bang/modern cosmology have some points of agreement but also time/light issues that may prompt alternative understanding.

Can you make peace with me here? There is no denial of the issues, above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Two things of note:

1) I would bet anyone $100 that none of the "several books" are from actual scientists.

2) I notice you failed to actually mention... even one.

Let's try to agree and make peace!

The isotropic and homogeneous universe does not preclude Genesis being true:

First, if our locality is in a gravity well (consider the Pioneer Problem, for example) then time dilation could make faraway light indeed be billions of years old while the Solar System was created more recently.

Second, the Big Bang and modern cosmology still has a time/light issue – the Horizon Problem.

Put another way, we can see that both Genesis and Big Bang/modern cosmology have some points of agreement but also time/light issues that may prompt alternative understanding.

Can you make peace with me here? There is no denial of the issues, above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it doesn't

Relativity
the dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, especially regarding the nature and behaviour of light, space, time, and gravity.

It means we can measure local motion (as has been explained before) relative to the observer and observed object

You can measure local motion of observed objects to say "X" is receding from me, yes.

Reference Absolute motion, is it detectable?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Genesis? That is your claim-- you cannot point to it as a supportive argument.

In any case? Since there is obviously nobody with the actual authority to force compliance with a particular interpretation?

Your word is no better (or worse) than anyone else's on earth-- each are about as valid as a random computer-generated "interpretation".

Because there isn't a single historical datum in support of Genesis, outside of religious circles-- and even within? There is a lot of argument and counter-argument....

... right back to the fact there is nothing with actual **authority** to enforce this thing.

It's as if there we no gods, anywhere, who gave a darn!


hmmmmm....

How do I lack, say, your authority on the Bible? Or vice versa?

Let me explain: Who knows Tolkien better, a devout fan like Christopher Lee, who read Lord of the Rings annually for 50 years, and was used by Peter Jackson as a technical editor, or me, who is avid but not that avid?

1) I'm avid in the Bible. I see things constantly that others have forgotten. Have you studied as much Hebrew and Greek as I have? Have you read the whole Bible carefully, like a letter from a lover, multiple times? 2) There aren't "thousands of interpretations" for a given passage, there are usually two, right and wrong. Either we keep or lose salvation, either we have faith or works or both, either Jesus rose or didn't.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ephraim Fischbach publishes on creation and apologetics sites. His work is not peer reviewed and until it is can only be seen as personal opinion

Even with constant decay rates, we must still account for sample contamination, original composition, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What is needed is measurement and the universe has been measured as flat (and so potentially infinite) to 5 decimal places

No the age of the solar system is calculated by taking several thousand measurements of (among other things) the age of meteorites.

Yes, flat to 10 to the fifth power. I agree. Yes, if radiometric dating is right, meteorites are ancient.

But when we take other measurements, such as where do all the comets come from, which would also have "half lives" from the Sun, we conjecture clouds of comets THAT ARE YET TO BE OBSERVED. How convenient!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You may find the subject or relativity fascinating but it is plain as the nose on your face that you have no clue about it

Yes you do, without peer review all you have is opinion

You really show you don't know your subject then you question some theories. Steady state is long gone but i know 28 theories regarding the bb.

And i notice you never addressed a single one of my comments and queries regarding your statement. Why is that?

Please realize that your style of argumentation speaks to me as well as your text. Being rude, like your "you have no clue!" is not making me want to deconvert from the Christian faith.

Steady State is long gone because it disobeys laws including entropy--to put a lay perspective on it. Big Bang requires "28 theories", yes, to solve problems including the "Horizon problem" of time/light travel.

It's not like only Creationists ask whether the speed of light has always been a constant or whether the Big Bang is missing something crucial or whether the universe is finite, not infinite. You are simply demonizing my position. I recognize that both lay people and scientists have made thousands of innovations in history, usually in the face of a lot of skeptics saying "what we know now/have now is 100% right, stop asking questions".

If you have a query(s) regarding my position, therefore, I'll happily address it. I like questions if they get me to think deeper. Sure.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Carbon dating is not the only dating method. Often several dating method's are used to date an object and the results compared. Only if they are in agreement are the results accepted.

The Kish tablet is dated to 3400 bc. However writing is not the only means of communication, i live in an area where cave painting is around 20000 years or more old

Yes, there are multiple dating methods that are accepted.

My point was that I've noticed we have been around 200,000 years at least but agronomy, cities, writing, law codes, etc. are best dated circa 3,000 BC and the traces of the above we can find are called "pre-historical". The Flood dates given and pre-history seem real close. Do you disagree?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Links.


What have you read that provides you with this understanding? As you say it, it makes no sense.


So..you have nothing, no theory or observation or any type of evidence for what you are speculating here? Scientists dislike fact-free, evidence-free, mathematics-free speculations.

I'm referring to Absolute Motion measurement.

The isotropic and homogeneous universe does not preclude Genesis being true:

First, if our locality is in a gravity well (consider the Pioneer Problem, for example) then time dilation could make faraway light indeed be billions of years old while the Solar System was created more recently.

Second, the Big Bang and modern cosmology still has a time/light issue – the Horizon Problem.

Put another way, we can see that both Genesis and Big Bang/modern cosmology have some points of agreement but also time/light issues that may prompt alternative understanding.

Can you make peace with me here? There is no denial of the issues, above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This has been refuted from further experiments. The results were mistaken due to experimental error:-
1)2009:-
Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft (Cooper)
Data from the power output of the radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard the Cassini spacecraft are used to test the conjecture that small deviations observed in terrestrial measurements of the exponential radioactive decay law are correlated with the Earth–Sun distance. No significant deviations from exponential decay are observed over a range of 0.7–1.6 A.U. A 90% CL upper limit of 0.84×10-4 is set on a term in the decay rate of 238Pu proportional to 1/R2 and 0.99×10-4 for a term proportional to 1/R. The terrestrially measured Earth–Sun distance correlation is ∼(3×10-2)/R2.

2) 2014
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html#jCp

3) 2014
Disproof of solar influence on the decay rates of 90Sr/90Y

Abstract
A custom-built liquid scintillation counter was used for long-term measurements of 90Sr/90Y sources. The detector system is equipped with an automated sample changer and three photomultiplier tubes, which makes the application of the triple-to-double coincidence ratio (TDCR) method possible. After decay correction, the measured decay rates were found to be stable and no annual oscillation could be observed. Thus, the findings of this work are in strong contradiction to those of Parkhomov (2011) who reported on annual oscillations when measuring 90Sr/90Y with a Geiger–Müller counter. Sturrock et al. (2012) carried out a more detailed analysis of the experimental data from Parkhomov and claimed to have found correlations between the decay rates and processes inside the Sun. These findings are questionable, since they are based on inappropriate experimental data as is demonstrated in this work. A frequency analysis of our activity data does not show any significant periodicity.

4) 2016
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants (Pomme et al)
The hypothesis that proximity to the Sun causes variation of decay constants at permille level has been tested and disproved. Repeated activity measurements of mono-radionuclide sources were performed over periods from 200 days up to four decades at 14 laboratories across the globe. Residuals from the exponential nuclear decay curves were inspected for annual oscillations. Systematic deviations from a purely exponential decay curve differ from one data set to another and are attributable to instabilities in the instrumentation and measurement conditions. The most stable activity measurements of alpha, beta-minus, electron capture, and beta-plus decaying sources set an upper limit of 0.0006% to 0.008% to the amplitude of annual oscillations in the decay rate. Oscillations in phase with Earth's orbital distance to the Sun could not be observed within a 10^−6 to 10^−5 range of precision. There are also no apparent modulations over periods of weeks or months. Consequently, there is no indication of a natural impediment against sub-permille accuracy in half-life determinations, renormalisation of activity to a distant reference date, application of nuclear dating for archaeology, geo- and cosmochronology, nor in establishing the SI unit becquerel and seeking international equivalence of activity standards.

Full paper link
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants

Thus, extensive investigations have unambiguously disproved this idea that radioactive decay rates are varying.

I'm okay with constant rates. I hope no scientist is okay with saying we know 100% original compositions of say, the atmosphere, since radioactive isotopes enter into our open system.