Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

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'. "

I like the way you think! I think the same way--which is why I've considered the money issue at length regarding the scriptures:

Both OT and NT leaders (religious, not kings) had limited income, wives, power, land, etc. Even the kings were told not to multiply armies or wives, but did so, unfortunately.

The NT preachers gave their possessions to help the Christian poor, worked with their hands during preaching tours, etc.

I can think of other motivations, but money wasn't one. Honestly, that's from reading the whole Bible multiple times--it's just not in there--nor can we see possessions really motivating the Buddha, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I lie when I setup the conditions?

I was told the human population before the 20th century doubles every 125 years or so. I looked that up using secular historical sources and secular historians.

I put 7 Billion into Excel and a formula to multiply x .5 every 125 somethings, and got about 6,000 somethings.

I neither setup the conditions nor lied. Please be more specific as to how I lied to myself using MS Excel formulae!

 

[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.

How many times have you intently looked at a book about relativity? And what on earth is the original centre and the edge of the BB expansion?

And by the way, what does Genesis say about water existing here on earth before the stars? Did oxygen travel time to get here after the stars have been created?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

First listing I found: Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

That's nothing more than a website that gives anecdotal information without actual documentation/citations. IOW, you've just substituted one set of stories for another. I mean, look at the first couple of things it lists....

Human bones, foot and handprints and artifacts have been found in rock and coal deposits which evolutionists claim is millions and even billions of years old. If that were true, there would be no way to account for these oddities, since man is supposed to have evolved in the recent past. The geological time frame is very obviously wrong.

A fossilized handprint in rock was found near Glen Rose Texas.​

What the heck is anyone supposed to do with that? It's no different than if I told you "My mom saw a T-Rex running down Main Street".

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Yes, it had no mass, just an infinite number of points between things that were touching. You know what I meant regarding the need for a powerful internal or external catalyst to cause such rapid expansion.

And it sat there for between six 24-hour days and all non-linear-time eternity before expanding space itself and at all points. THESE below are the contribution of MULTIPLE authors. Prescient that they knew modern observational cosmology, I believe...

ob 9:8
He alone stretches out the heavens _ and treads on the waves of the sea.

Psalm 104:2
The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; _ he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, _ and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD saysÑ _the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, _ who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, _ who gives breath to its people, _ and life to those who walk on it

Isaiah 44:24
ÒThis is what the LORD saysÑ _ your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, _ the Maker of all things, _ who stretches out the heavens, _ who spreads out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 45:12
It is I who made the earth _ and created mankind on it. _My own hands stretched out the heavens; _ I marshaled their starry hosts.

Isaiah 48:13
My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, _ and my right hand spread out the heavens; _when I summon them, _ they all stand up together.

Isaiah 51:13
that you forget the LORD your Maker, _ who stretches out the heavens _ and who lays the foundations of the earth, _that you live in constant terror every day _ because of the wrath of the oppressor, _ who is bent on destruction?

Jeremiah 10:12
But God made the earth by his power; _ he founded the world by his wisdom _ and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

Jeremiah 51:15
ÒHe made the earth by his power; _ he founded the world by his wisdom _ and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

Zechariah 12:1
The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: 2 ÒI am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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...)



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



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.

Wait, help me understand. I read the above as your statement of "practical living" and that you "deal with reality" and that "reality is what is".

Never again complain about the following:

*Religion sucks

*There's too much suffering on Earth

*Ignorance

*Etc.

Because that's all reality. Be consistent.

 

[sayak83]

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.

No, I am not at peace. Provide a theory explicitly, so that I can understand what exactly you are saying here.
The solar system is itself 5 billion years old as confirmed from radiogenic isotope data from moon, mars, meteorite samples, comets etc.
The Pioneer "problem" has been completely solved:-
Over the period 1998–2012, one particular explanation became accepted. The spacecraft, which are surrounded by an ultra-high vacuum and are each powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), can shed heat only via thermal radiation. If, due to the design of the spacecraft, more heat is emitted in a particular direction—what is known as a radiative anisotropy—then the spacecraft would accelerate slightly in the direction opposite of the excess emitted radiation due to the recoil of thermal photons—thermal recoil force. If the excess radiation and attendant radiation pressure were pointed in a general direction opposite the Sun, the spacecraft's velocity away from the Sun would be decreasing at a rate greater than could be explained by previously recognized forces, such as gravity and trace friction, due to the interplanetary medium (imperfect vacuum).

By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this explains the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."


Pioneer anomaly - Wikipedia

Cosmic inflation, part of the standard Big Bang model, has taken care of the horizon problem decades ago.

What evidence or theory or observation do you have to justify your claim that the earth is young and refute the claim that it is old as the observations I alluded to suggests? Please provide some. Otherwise what rational justification do you have in making such claims?

 

[sayak83]

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.

None of the rocks being sampled for radiogenic dates in the examples I stated depends on any atmospheric elements. Neither Lead, Uranium, Thorium, Strontium, Rubidium etc. come from the atmosphere. These are from volcanic rocks and comes from the lava from the interior of earth. The earth is and has always been a closed system with respect to these elements important in U/Pb and Sr/Rb dating etc. So, we are quite certain that Zircon crystals have had no relationship with atmospheric composition of radio-isotopes.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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?

What do I believe? I do not believe-- because that is a dangerous mindset to entertain.

Belief, by definition, is accepting things for which there is no evidence--- and I try never to do that, even if the "authority" is credible.

I want to see the evidence, at a bare minimum, I must see the argument(s) that lead to the conclusion(s).

So-- what do I believe? I have no beliefs-- not how anyone who believes in god(s) means the word.

To entertain belief would be to lie to myself. not good.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Yes... but that would require logic and a tiny shred of rationality.

All creationists-- no exceptions-- lack both of those skills. Instead, the majority of their "arguments" are an appeal to emotion, devoid of fact.

Of course, creationists also lie frequently and often-- and they know they are lying-- they've had their lies shown to be lies often enough.

 

[ChristineM]

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

I prefer to go on evidence than guess, you are welcome to you blind fsith

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There is no Earth. It's existence, and the existence of life on it, is nothing more than a theory; a conjecture. People who claim that its existence is a fact, and try to use science jargon to explain it, are just trying to confuse everyone. No one knows for sure whether Earth even exists, and, even if it does, the possibility that life exists on it is dubious, at best.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

You say let's make peace then throw a bomb?

The scientific knowledge of the universe discounts any requirement for god's.

First.. what? Sorry bud but that's just crazy

Second. What? No it doesn't

We can see only one similarity, between the ideas of some few scientists and genesis which in verse 1:2 claims the the earth was made from nothing (void) (which of course you deny emphatically). That's the earth, nothing else, just the earth. Other than that, and i have asked this before, please provide clues as to which aspects of a bronze age mythology book jell with modern cosmology. You should note that i have asked this dame question of Christians, Jews and Muslims and none has actually provided a truthfull answer.

Making peace is not a problem, i never even knew we were at war. We do however disagree on scientific understanding, i take the view that dedicated science and maths describe the universe from 10e-42 of a second after the bb to the heat death of the universe in approximately 15 trillion years and beyond (before 10e-42 of a second what we have is conjecture because our understanding of conditions break's down) whereas you say a bronze age book of mythology has all the answers you'll ever want to guess at from even before what is unknown.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I like the way you think! I think the same way--which is why I've considered the money issue at length regarding the scriptures:

Both OT and NT leaders (religious, not kings) had limited income, wives, power, land, etc. Even the kings were told not to multiply armies or wives, but did so, unfortunately.

The NT preachers gave their possessions to help the Christian poor, worked with their hands during preaching tours, etc.

I can think of other motivations, but money wasn't one. Honestly, that's from reading the whole Bible multiple times--it's just not in there--nor can we see possessions really motivating the Buddha, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.

That may have been true 1000's of years back-- but during the Rise of Christianity, which happened under the auspices of the Catholic church?

Money was the most influential motivation. And yes, I can show my work. In the earliest days, priests were as often as not, poor farmers, and supplemented their preaching with farming--including having a wife and kids, and so forth. They often owned land, and the habit was to pass that down to their offspring, as did most folk of that time and place. They got zero financial support from Vatican.

Fast-forward a few generations, and the Vatican realized how much money they were loosing with this tradition, and so-- overnight, the pope Declares that All Priests Are Now Celibate. All priestly marriages are hereby dissolved, the wives to be put away, the kids off to the orphanage, etc. (note that this last was not always nor immediately followed-- people being people, and the pope being too far away to enforce)

But here's where the money shtick kicks in: that poor priest no longer owns his own land. It now belongs to the Church.

This was simply a blatant land-grab-- and has been going on for thousands of years-- the church grabbing all the land (which was/is the ultimate in riches) it could get it's greedy paws on.

The ultimate example of money-influence, of course, was the selling of sins--"indulgences". Something that the old stick-in-the-mud racial bigot, Luther really hated....

Never underestimate money as a motivation.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Reference Absolute motion, is it detectable?

Yet you also say no, you say motion cant be measured, maske up your mind

 

[ChristineM]

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

Yup, done that, ticked that box, what other objections to knowledge do you have?

 

[ChristineM]

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!

What?

No - flat to 5 decimal places, as i stated

You are confusing angular measurement with 2 points on the cmb and one on earth with meteorites. No wonder you seem uncertain

What?

You obviously have been studying at creation science etc because you are talking complete nonsense.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That does not follow for several reasons:

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

No-- admitting your biases does not absolve you of them-- it only proves you are aware that you must lie, if the facts do not fit your already-decided "conclusion"

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).

So you are guilty of a logical fallacy, here. And you, like they, are guilty of ignoring or twisting reality itself, to fit what you desperately want to believe.

And you reject out of hand, any and all facts that would destroy those desperately held beliefs.

The fact that you attempt to protest what is obvious to any non-believer?

Only proves my point: your site is a Lying For Jesus™ website.

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"."

No--- their "about" is exactly what I said it is. They refuse anything -- anything -- that might go against what they pretend the bible says.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

The only way you can "reconcile" the Genesis legend, with modern physics?

Is to ignore 100% of what it says-- instead, "converting" it to "allegory" or a fancy parable.

That's fine-- you'd be in Proud Company with the majority of the planet.

Of course, if you do that? You give up "justification" for "original sin".

And if you do that? You give up all need for Jesus as a "savior"-- there was no point to his untimely demise....

You kinda shoot yourself in the foot, here...

I, personally have zero issue with that-- it's how many folk eventually wake up and realize they've been duped for much of their lives, by people who wish to keep them under control...

.. like good little sheep. It's not at all an accident that Christianity's message is chock-full of language describing it's followers being passive, unthinking little sheep...

 

[ChristineM]

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.

I have no intention of trying to convert anyone. I speak as i find and some of your statements indicate that i am correct, whether you find that rude is not my problem.

Who said it requires 28 theories? I said i know 28 theories of conditions prior to 10e-42 of a second of the bb, that includes before the bb. But consider your faith, there are now upward of 60,000 theories on how the babble is interpreted. Why complain that 28 scientist's have differing ideas of what is unknown an so can only be modelled mathematically from known conditions

There is little question of the bb occurring at roughly 14 billion years ago, several techniques confirm this. As for the speed of light, it is not constant although the upper limit is. The point is moot anyway, light did not exist in the beginning. It was too hot and far to dense for photons to form.

From what i have seen of your posts, no, i have no queries about your position, I'd rather read the works of those who know