Evidence for an ancient earth

[gnostic]

Multiverses offer no such verifiable prediction, they are inherently (conveniently) beyond scientific investigation altogether. after every other atheist model being utterly debunked, the atheist goal posts have been moved off the scientific pitch entirely.

Sorry, but atheism have nothing to do with multiverse, because atheism isn't science.

Atheism isn't science, nor is theism, science. None of religions, along with their respective belief in their scriptures, science.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, because they rely on the belief in a Creator(s) or Designer(s), not of which have any evidence to support their existences.

Second, multiverse is not scientific theory, because they are theoretical, due to the fact, they are not testable.

Multiverse is proven through mathematical equations, but it isn't testable or observable (no experiments can be carried out and no empirical evidences can be discovered). This is why multiverse, like other theoretical physics (e.g. Superstring theory, M-theory, etc), are called theoretical physics, not empirical physics (or experimental physics).

No theoretical science are accepted to be true, because none of them are currently testable, and you can go through each of the processes of scientific method.

Scientific theory required it to be falsifiable, so any theory or hypothesis must contain explanation and some predictions that can be either (A) tested or experimented in the laboratory settings, or (B) discovered evidences in the fields.

In another word, scientific theory is only accepted to be true, when it passed every steps in scientific theory.

Creationism and ID failed to go through scientific method (meaning, they are not testable), so they are not "empirical science". They (Creationism and ID) also failed in the mathematical and logical department, because there no accepted mathematical equations in Creationism and ID, therefore no proofs. So Creationism and ID are also not theoretical science.

So if Creationism and ID don't fall under the empirical or theoretical categories, then what are they?

They are pseudoscience and faith-based religious concepts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But. You believe. You have faith in things for which there is no evidence-- you are *sure*. That is belief.

That sort of non-think? Is an anathema to a non-believer. You could not be more insulting if you tried.

I understand you did not intend to be insulting? (I hope not) -- but you keep using the insulting term "atheist belief".

You may as well have said, "nazi jew" ... !

How many times do you need it spelled out? Your continuing to use the phrase makes me think you are intentionally insulting.

Yes I have faith in things I can't prove, I act on my unproven beliefs just as I would if they were proven, so do you.

If I am insulting you I am insulting myself, but faith is a strength, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes I have faith in things I can't prove, I act on my unproven beliefs just as I would if they were proven, so do you.

No. I do not. You keep thinking we are the same-- and that is 100% false-- it could not be further from the truth.

The principle difference?

You *must* suppress any and all facts, thoughts, argument that might possibly interfere with your Faith--for which you have absolutely ZERO reason to accept-- but you do anyway.

I, on the other hand, operate on **conditions** -- if facts, argument or evidence shows something is *wrong*? I *must* accept that something is wrong or false. To do otherwise would be to lie---

-- just as **all** creationists **must** do, in order to maintain their faith!

 

[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?

So, the Milky Way is also 6000 years old?

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.

Heavenly water? I never read anything neither on Nature nor in Scientific American. Do you know the authors?

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?

Sure. But why do you then justify an young earth with gravity wells and relativity, when God can do anything? It seems like looking for trouble.

So, what you are telling me is that the Bible is confirmed by science, except when it is not. And when it is not, it is because God can do everything.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So, the Milky Way is also 6000 years old?



Heavenly water? I never read anything neither on Nature nor in Scientific American. Do you know the authors?



Sure. But why do you then justify an young earth with gravity wells and relativity, when God can do anything? It seems like looking for trouble.

So, what you are telling me is that the Bible is confirmed by science, except when it is not. And when it is not, it is because God can do everything.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

"The bible is always 100% correct, except when it isn't."

LMAO!

 

[David M]

Second, multiverse is not scientific theory, because they are theoretical, due to the fact, they are not testable.

No one claims that there are scientific theories just that they are scientific hypotheses.

Multiverses may indeed be testable. That makes the concept falsifiable.

 

[gnostic]

Multiverses may indeed be testable. That makes the concept falsifiable.

No, it isn't empirical testable, but it is mathematically testable or provable.

To be empirical testable, you would have to be able to cross over that other -verses and perhaps even bring something or someone with you when you come back to our universe. And would you know if you were at another universe, and not on another planet in this universe?

Right now, multiverse is merely speculative and numbers. The multiverse model is not truly falsifiable, because there are no real ways to test.

 

[David M]

No, it isn't empirical testable, but it is mathematically testable or provable.

To be empirical testable, you would have to be able to cross over that other -verses and perhaps even bring something or someone with you when you come back to our universe. And would you know if you were at another universe, and not on another planet in this universe?

Right now, multiverse is merely speculative and numbers. The multiverse model is not truly falsifiable, because there are no real ways to test.

No, they may be empirically testable because they should leave some traces in our universe when collisions occur (which must also happen).

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

If there was less disparity between high and low places on Earth, there would be double the water required from today's oceans. Great subterranean geysers falling to Earth again or rain from above need not have fallen on Noah's ark to flood the world.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

I'm not referring to contamination inside crystals. I'm finding rather both refutations of RATE work and counter-refutation positions describing crystal samples being taken from crystals held atop metal posts that could contaminate samples. There's a lot of work to do yet.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Genesis is 100% issue-filled. In every single verse, in both creation myths, there are issues that are provably false.

Yes, the Big Bang model is far from prefect-- but it's just a model.

Being imperfect does not automagically mean, "Gawd, What? 'Eee done it, hey?"

That is a logical fallacy -- it presumes a Dichotomy where there is none.

I did not put God in a gap. I wrote rather that it would be honest to say there are issues people don't understand about the Bible and the Big Bang alike.

Do you disagree? The problem is when you automatically say, "There is no God so mechanistic processes done it". That's as assumptive as what you're accusing theists of believing. By the way, in cosmology and other sciences, I look for naturalistic explanations first (and second and third).

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is hardly confined to Catholics. *All* christian churches-- no exception-- require money.

Proof? They ask for donations/money every service. And they have ways to guilt you into paying.


And to me? This is proof that there are no gods behind a single one!

"Why does God need a starship?" ~ James T Kirk.

Why does the Ultimate Creator of the Universe need your money, anyway?

Are you being rhetorical or asking a question re: church finances. I cannot tell.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I thought we were arguing! That's why I came. If I had wanted the Abuse Clinic, I'd have stopped in room 4A. /end sarcasm

The fact is? If you cannot permit data that contravenes your deeply held belief?

You are forced to lie to yourself-- the worst of all possible lies.

As an Unbeliever? I can go where the data and facts take me-- even if it is Something Weird or Strange.

This has always been the difference between Believers and NonBelievers.

As Tim Minchin said:

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

It sounds like you are basing your bias (no god can possibly exist) to state categorically that all theists are more biased than atheists. That has not been my experience.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh. I did not know that--- I thought you were still capable of logical reasoning. I am so sorry!

That is too bad--- a Literal Genesis is 100% impossible-- it contradicts itself!

Just the two Creation Stories are inconsistent: Did man come before the animals, or after?

One says "before"

The other says "after"

WHICH IS IT? You cannot resolve this UNLESS YOU LIE.

That's only one of 100's of self-contradictions.... you must IGNORE ONE? Or Lie about them both.... !

You are unaware that telling a story twice is a part of ancient Hebraic thought, as in Genesis?

You are unaware that ancient storytellers including the Genesis and gospel writers, Muhammed, etc. did not always tell stories in chronological fashion? (You are viewing Genesis through a presentist lens.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

I lack sufficient information to make an informed conclusion. It remains an open question. The only thing for sure? Is that it happened-- the universe expanded from a smaller size. That is without question-- the data all points backwards to that.

And is not it a SIN to bear false witness? Dr Tyson agrees with what I just said, above--- taking someone's words out of context is lying.

I don't understand. Dr. Tyson agrees with my viewpoint but only I'm a liar?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does the bb have issues, can't say I've ever seen you provide evidernce for this claim. Genesis cosmology? You must be joking... right?

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Void? Waters? God magic!

Could you please explain your 2nd paragraph, are you saying the universe came from nothing?

I don't deny that what we see now was formerly created. Your alternative is that the pre-time/space/matter/energy in the singularity was eternal in nature. How do you account for (what became) the universe being eternally preexistent?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it is not an assumption as polymath and other's have explained to you often enough. It is observed and accurately measured.

One possibility is right, your another does not make sense

Please reference these axioms and assumptions

Please explain how the Earth's absolute motion along stretching spacetime (not revolving around the Sun and etc.) is "observed and measured". We can observe objects preceding away from us in all directions--but that doesn't explain how we're in absolute motion.

If what you are saying is true, please tell us the Cartesian direction in which we're moving.

 

[BilliardsBall]

May i suggest you take a look at https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca

No it doesn't make sense to me, i done believe in mythology and magic but you have your faith.

What at Perimeter Institute has to do with the logical necessity of disallowing imperfect people from being citizens of a utopia?

Do you disagree? Can people make their own utopia based on their perpetual inability to do the right thing always?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thats 10e-5, the minus sign is important, it makes a difference of orders of magnitude

Indeed it does, but it would be standard in expressing odds against to use a positive coefficient. I have 1 in X chances against, not 1 in -X chances because then there would be negative chances or iterations.

I think the real problem, however, is the many people on this thread conversant with physics and misquoting the scriptures. The difference being that the scriptures can make us wise for salvation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are literally countless remains of modern humans, their ceramic pottery, burnt flint and kiln, burnt animal bones from their hearth that have all been directly dated to anywhere from 100,000-9000 years all over the world by 4-5 different dating techniques like thermoluminescence, electron-spin-resonance, fission track, Uranium series and radio-carbon dating. One example are the remains of humans along with bone ornaments (shell beads), body coloring (ochre), burnt animal bones and flint found in two caves in Israel that are dated to 100,000 years, even before the Neanderthals were there

When Neanderthals Replaced Us | DiscoverMagazine.com

Shells and ochre in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: indications for modern behavior (Yoseph Mayer et al 2009)
Qafzeh Cave, the burial grounds of several anatomically modern humans, producers of Mousterian industry, yielded archaeological evidence reflecting their modern behavior. Dated to 92,000 yrs BP, the lower layers at the site contained a series of hearths, several human graves, flint artifacts, animal bones, a collection of sea shells, lumps of red ochre, and an incised cortical flake. The marine shells were recovered from layers earlier than most of the graves except for one burial. The shells were collected and brought from the Mediterranean Sea shore some 35 km away, and are complete Glycymeris bivalves, naturally perforated. Several valves bear traces of having been strung, and a few had ochre stains on them.

Evidence for 90,000 Year Old Human Burials at Qafzeh Cave, Israel

The oldest levels are dated to the Mousterian Middle Paleolithic period, about 80,000-100,000 years ago (thermoluminescence dates of 92,000 +/- 5,000; electron spin resonance dates 82,400-109,000 +/- 10,000). In addition to human remains, the site is characterized by a series of hearths; and stone tools from the Middle Paleolithic levels are dominated by artifacts made using the radial or centripetal Levallois technique. Qafzeh cave contains some of the earliest evidence for burials in the world.

According to Coqueugniot and colleagues' analysis, Qafzeh 11, a juvenile aged between 12-13, suffered a traumatic brain injury about eight years before his or her death. The injury would likely have impacted Qafzeh 11's cognitive and social skills, and it appears as if the juvenile was given a deliberate, ceremonial burial with deer antlers as grave goods. The burial and the survival of the child, reflects an elaborate social behavior for the Middle Paleolithic inhabitants of Qafzeh cave.


Here, also is a series of earliest modern human fossils that predate them,
Meet the Contenders for Earliest Modern Human | Science | Smithsonian


82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior ( Bouzouggar et al 2007)

The first appearance of explicitly symbolic objects in the archaeological record marks a fundamental stage in the emergence of modern social behavior in Homo. Ornaments such as shell beads represent some of the earliest objects of this kind. We report on examples of perforated Nassarius gibbosulus shell beads from Grotte des Pigeons (Taforalt, Morocco), North Africa. These marine shells come from archaeological levels dated by luminescence and uranium-series techniques to ≈82,000 years ago. They confirm evidence of similar ornaments from other less well dated sites in North Africa and adjacent areas of southwest Asia. The shells are of the same genus as shell beads from slightly younger levels at Blombos Cave in South Africa. Wear patterns on the shells imply that some of them were suspended, and, as at Blombos, they were covered in red ochre. These findings imply an early distribution of bead-making in Africa and southwest Asia at least 40 millennia before the appearance of similar cultural manifestations in Europe.

I appreciate your sharing dating methods on remains. Have you done the Excel math to extrapolate backwards? And have you considered how as a dominant species we should be much more prevalent after so much time on Earth--unless of course, there was a catastrophe, say, the Flood.