Evidence for an ancient earth

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, I disagree that 'Primeval Atom' is more descriptive of what happens than 'Big Bang'. No, it is not an explosion, so 'Big Bang' is, in that sense, a misnomer. But there was no 'Primeval Atom' in most descriptions. And the use of 'Primeval Atom' carries its own collection of images and inaccuracies. Both terminologies have their issues.

Now, to be fair, LeMaitre mainly solved Einstein's equations for the universe as a whole. He did NOT give evidence that these solutions described the real world. It took Hubble to do that. Furthermore, the co-discoverers of the expanding universe solutions also did not get a Nobel Prize. This happens. I tis MUCH harder to get a Nobel prize for theoretical work that has not been demonstrated to be true.

It is also interesting, for example, that Einstein did NOT get a Nobel prize for either Special or General relativity. He got his Nobel Prize for the explanation of the photo-electric effect. It is arguable, but it is generally agreed that Relativity is deeper and more fundamental than the photo-electric effect.

Yes it is all still largely theoretical, the universe appears to date back 14 odd billion years by extrapolating the appearance of expansion backwards, but classical physics also appeared to account for the physical universe by extrapolating apples falling from trees.. superficially.. As relates to the OP- most creative works begin with an apparent back story to give context, but the timeline of the story actually begins where the reader begins on the 1st page. It's not unreasonable to allow that God may chose to do likewise.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.

^

But you somehow reached a conclusion of what you believe is most likely,

Nope. I read the **arguments** in support of that theory. And I could not disagree-- so I say they are likely.

IT HAS DAMN-ALL TO DO WITH BELIEF. I do not believe--because that is what idiots do in place of study.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Once again,
I acknowledge my beliefs, my faith as such, I have no problem doing so, neither did Lemaitre. Hoyle and most atheists like yourself do, and often get very defensive and emotional bout it, and this has put up barriers to scientific progress.

One More Time-- with Feeling: I. Do. Not. Believe.

Belief or faith, is what IDIOTS engage in, in place of STUDY.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One More Time-- with Feeling: I. Do. Not. Believe.

Belief or faith, is what IDIOTS engage in, in place of STUDY.

You believed the academic arguments apparently, since you certainly did not study the multiverse directly yourself!

but tell me what word do you prefer for your stance, conclusion? assertion? claim? the semantics don't really change what your belief is, call it what you will-

I am still curious though, obviously you are >50% confident in your position, so is it 51% 75% 95% certainty? you tell me, no pressure!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You believed the academic arguments apparently, since you certainly did not study the multiverse directly yourself!

but tell me what word do you prefer for your stance, conclusion? assertion? claim? the semantics don't really change what your belief is, call it what you will-

I am still curious though, obviously you are >50% confident in your position, so is it 51% 75% 95% certainty? you tell me, no pressure!

Either the model is Useful, and capable of Interesting Predictions with regards to the system it is modeling?

Or it isn't.

By that criteria, you could be silly and say it's 50/50.

Useful Models can be made to help provoke research directions, which the subsequently uncover Interesting Phenomena.

But--- and this is key -- it is just a Model. It may or may not reflect the underlying reality. It may be so far removed from underlying reality, that it's laughable when you dig very deep into the details.

For example: Do I "believe" in Newtonian Physics? No. Do I find Newtonian Physics a useful model? Absolutely! Does it matter that Newtonian Physics is, at best, an approximation? Not in the least-- modern physicists well understand the limitations under which Newton's maths work-- and where they fail.

1) long-time frames, Newton's failure t account for subtleties of motion, will accumulate, and your prediction of where a moving body ought to be, and where it actually is, do not match.

2) very dense and/or massive objects. Newton's physics, again, cannot account for subtle affects of very massive objects, and their affects on spacetime. We are speaking of masses much larger than our sun's mass-- orders of magnitude larger. But even then? If you limit your calculations to very short duration, and are willing to make mid-course corrections? Newton is a darn sight easier to calculate than other models.

3) very fast relative velocities. Once you go past some value of C, (I don't remember, sorry) objects moving at such speeds, do not behave in Newtonian fashion. And therefore, predictions as to their behavior (eventual destination, path, etc) do not match, if you calculate them using Newton's.

So. Do I think Newton as *wrong*? Or was he *right*? No, and No.

Your problem is you have a FAITH-BASED world view.

I DO NOT. The above is likely beyond your ability to visualize, due t the aforementioned FAITH-BASED.

You absolutely must rely on some Authority.

I have no such limitations-- I am free to question everything-- no matter what.

You? You are absolutely forbidden from questioning your Authority. Upon pain of -- something Bad.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

So you want to fight rather than make peace as suggested?

I think relativity is fascinating and I've read up on it to better understand.

Current theorizing says there is no center to the universe, it's flat and infinite. You could still have the Milky Way and neighboring space inside a gravity well--time displacement causing a very young system here and an old universe outside the well. Do you disagree?

You may want to parse the Genesis waters more carefully. There seems to be a reference to water revealing land masses on Earth but there could also be a sheath of water beyond our visible universe. There was a pretty interesting theory proposed regarding "heavenly water" and gravity-induced forces.

The question you are asking re: oxygen makes no sense to me on several levels. 1) You are continuing to assume all natural laws were in fact upon initial expansion/creation. You are still assuming God never interrupts natural law. 2) You may remember that scientists have constructed space stations and rockets where people can travel with an oxygen/atmosphere supply. It's simply holding and releasing pressurized gas. Would it be difficult for a God who made a billions-of-light-years-in-size universe to reroute the Earth's atmosphere?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Interesting! Both Pioneer spacecraft emit these forces on their sides pointed away from the Sun? Wow.

I have concluded the scriptures are 100% accurate. It is possible there is a very old Earth. That wouldn't refute the scriptures. I have not looked carefully at the evidence for some time--not your posts--just in general looking outside--and the anti-RATE and other claims are indeed very interesting. I'm still pondering and researching.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Yes, the openness of Earth rocks is not in dispute. Care must be taken, however, with sampling, contaminants and etc. I've been reading both refutations of the RATE diamond case and the refutations of those refutations. There is a lot to digest.

 

[sayak83]

Interesting! Both Pioneer spacecraft emit these forces on their sides pointed away from the Sun? Wow.

I have concluded the scriptures are 100% accurate. It is possible there is a very old Earth. That wouldn't refute the scriptures. I have not looked carefully at the evidence for some time--not your posts--just in general looking outside--and the anti-RATE and other claims are indeed very interesting. I'm still pondering and researching.

While I question your claim that there is sufficient justification to conclude that Bible is 100% accurate, this is not the thread for that discussion. All current scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that earth is old. You will find this to be the case if you do investigate. How one integrates this with prior beliefs is upto that person. I wish you the best of luck in your investigations.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

It's a "bomb" to tell you the truth? The truth that the BB has some issues, and that Genesis cosmology has some issues?

I don't recall denying a creation ex nihilo from Gen 1:2. All matter/energy wasn't in this timespace and then it expanded into it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You may want to parse the Genesis waters more carefully. There seems to be a reference to water revealing land masses on Earth but there could also be a sheath of water beyond our visible universe. There was a pretty interesting theory proposed regarding "heavenly water" and gravity-induced forces.

Sorry? Genesis Flood is 100% impossible. Never happened-- not even a little bit.

Ignore the fact there is insufficient water-- forgetaboutit.

A simple calculation of the rate of rainfall needed, to achieve total mountaintop coverage of the earth, to the requisite number of cubits?

Would be a rate synonymous with Niagara Falls.

I don't care how magical "gopher wood" is! It would be smashed to bits in a few minutes!

Moreover, everyone-- including Noah and all his animals-- would drown under such a deluge.

The flood never happened for that fact alone.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I think money/power/land is a priority STILL for the Roman "church". I just don't know how we got from the gospel message of Jesus and the apostles, who died penniless, to looking at a "church" that does several hundred things at last count that Jesus and the NT say to not do!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Huh? We don't need to look into outer space to perceive objects that recede from us. But we do need some serious science to know that we in motion around the Sun and so on.

But the statement "everything is moving away" is including our own absolute motion as an assumption. One possibility - the universe has no center. Another - we are near or quite near the center and cannot detect our lack of absolute motion.

You can vehemently disagree, but certain things you are saying are "facts" are listed by all reputable cosmologists and astronomers as axioms and assumptions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

I have no objections to learning or knowledge. I've not looked carefully at the latest science and am doing so now. The Earth could well be billions of years old. I don't fear unusual knowledge. If you don't fear it either, be open to Jesus.

I remember my strong reactions against the gospel when I first heard it. I'm not good enough for utopia on my own? I'll mess up Heaven because I sin? I need to be transformed by a perfect God? Jesus died for me?!

I think Jesus died and rose to solve a logical problem (via love) that I need to be changed to be on my best behavior always or I'll muss Heaven up for its citizens. Does that make sense?

 

[sayak83]

Yes, the openness of Earth rocks is not in dispute. Care must be taken, however, with sampling, contaminants and etc. I've been reading both refutations of the RATE diamond case and the refutations of those refutations. There is a lot to digest.

You are confusing the idea of a crystal being an open system (there is mass transfer to and from the crystal) and the earth being an open system with respect to Uranium, Lead, Thorium etc. Some zircon crystals certainly get damaged enough that lead, accumulated by uranium decay leaks out. But many zircon grains do not have this problem and they can can be isolated by something from the more damaged ones by chemical abrasion in Hydro-fluric acid. Damaged zircons will have cracks in the crystal through which the lead atoms have migrated out. The acid will diffuse through these cracks and destroy the crystal. But undamaged crystals will have no cracks and the acid will not be able to act on it. This provides us with the undamaged zircon grains that are closed to mass loss and these are dated by the radiogenic method. The test of a closed zircon is that their results for the U(235) and U(238) will match, as they are independent decay reactions and proceed differently from each other. Thus one is certain of the fidelity of the results.

Furthermore, zircon incorporates and holds onto uranium and tries to eliminate lead as its crystal is not compatible with lead. So all loss is loss of lead, and this creates an underestimation of the age of a particular rock. Overestimation never happens by this very popular dating method.

If you want to investigate further, here is a good resource:-
https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/schoene/pdf/4_10_Schoene_UThPb_geochronology.pdf

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Now we're just being silly. Finding something is correct in its precision to 0.00005 is equivalent to saying it has odds of 1:10^5 against.

My math is okay, my social sciences are strong, I admit my physics and cosmology are weak. But I have an "insider view" on some things!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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"



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.



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

Now that we're done with me admitting I have strong opinions and strong biases and you calling me and many people I love liars and guilty, what would you like to discuss or argue?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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...

There are passages in the NT about shepherds and sheep and other passages:

*The righteous are as bold as lions

*The Earth is ours and the universe

*Let's use reason with God

*etc. although I guess "chock-full" is an exaggeration.

But you must learn to not tell me what I think, please. I didn't say I have to allegorize Genesis. I'm a Creationist because I believe in a literal Genesis.

And in some regards, I'm a Christian because of how atheists talk and "discuss". Now that you're done saying I lie, twist Genesis and am a stupid sheep, do you want to discuss something like gentle folk? If you're certain I'm stupid, why talk with me?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And @BilliardsBall

You may be interested in this

I've prefaced my remarks saying "prior to the last century". The curve looks much different when you trim the sharp end.

One estimate I saw said in revolutionary times there were 100 million souls here. Has anyone here done the math in Excel? It seems like people are afraid to learn there were 8 people 6,000 years ago.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are guilty of two logical fallacies, here:

1) Conformation Bias.

2) Argument from ignorance.

In the former case, you want there to be a "prime mover" so you "see" the need for one (when there isn't)

In the latter case, you cannot fathom an explanation, so therefore: [your] god.

I'll let Dr Tyson answer this:

"If you don't understand something, and the community of physicists don't understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on."

~ Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson

But I never said "God did it!" All I said was "it required an extraordinary catalyst to expand the BB". DO YOU DISAGREE? N d Tyson doesn't disagree! Does he have confirmation bias, too?