• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

Which side of the debate are you on?

  • I believe the earth is old

  • I believe the earth is young


Results are only viewable after voting.

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
-----------
This is sort of what I´m doing here.:) And I assume I´m getting the same kind of respons here as if posting to a peer review audience.

Shift of paradigms isn´t exactly the primary quality for reviewers :)
You're not doing anything of the kind here. This isn't a scientific journal or organization. To publish your work, you'd have to actually show your work and open it up to scientists in the field for scrutiny in a formal manner. That doesn't happen on an internet debate forum.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
--------------------
There is NO need to include technical explanations in order to explain how the electromagnetic Sun heats up and extend objects.

May I remind you of this Einsteinian quotation:
"If you cannot explain your cosmological thoughts and theories so even a barmaid can understand it, you haven´t fully understood it yourself".

I know barmaids that know more about cosmology, or even basic physics, than you.

Ciao

- viole
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The only natural thermonuclear fusion I know of, is located in galactic centers from where strong gamma rays beams out of the galactic poles as a cause of this central electromagnetic fusion which creates stars etc.

This is silly, Native.

If you don’t understand what a star do and how star work, then how can you ever expect to know and understand what a galaxy is and how galaxy work?

Clearly you don’t know how stars produce light, heat and other radiations, that come through the stars’ process of nuclear fusion.

So I will just focus on the following illustrations on nuclear fusion:

  1. I will not include the formation of new stars, nor will I focus talk of the stars’ final stages in the life cycle (eg so no red giants, white dwarfs, supernovae, neutron stars and blackholes).
  2. I will only focus on main sequence stars; in fact I will only on one typical main sequence star - our Sun, since it has been the most observed star because of close proximity to us.

The main sequence stars or dwarf stars, spent the large part of its life, fusing hydrogen atoms into helium, most of this occurring at the stars’ cores. This process of nuclear fusion is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

There are several different types of Nucleosynthesis involving stars, as well as Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

Basically, Nucleosynthesis is forming heavier elements from lighter elements.

But let’s just focus on the Sun for now.

The type of Nucleosynthesis that currently occurring at the Sun’s core is known as “proton-proton chain reaction”, where the core fused hydrogen atoms into helium.

So if you really want to understand what I said so far, look up Stellar Nucleosynthesis and proton-proton chain reaction.

Now, if you remember your high school chemistry and the periodic table, a single hydrogen nucleus has only one proton, but no neutron. While a helium nucleus has 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

Since we are talking about nuclear fusion and nucleosynthesis, there are no needs to bring in electrons.

The Sun composed mostly of hydrogen, as well as lesser of helium, and as a Population I star (current and youngest generation of stars) it has some trace elements of heavier atoms (eg carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, etc). Second generation (Population II) stars have less heavier elements, and first generation of stars (Population III) have none.

These heavier elements (all elements heavier than helium) are called “metals”, should not be confused with metals on Earth. These elements come from debris of past stars that have gone “supernova”, produced by Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

For nuclear fusion to occur, it needs the right amount of heat and pressures, and the Sun’s core is hotter than outer layers (Radiative Zone and Convective Zone) and surface (Photosphere).

As I have been saying fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium occurred at the Sun’s core and the core consisted of mainly hydrogen, and the total number of hydrogen required to produce one helium atom is 6 hydrogen atoms.

And the proton-proton chain reaction (Nucleosynthesis) takes 3 stages.

To better illustrate my point, here is a diagram from Wikipedia article on

1347px-Fusion_in_the_Sun.svg.png

The first stage occurred when each set (2 sets of 4 hydrogen atoms, right with 2 hydrogen and left with 2 hydrogen) has fused 2 hydrogen atoms together into hydrogen with one proton and one neutron (2H). The neutron is produced when it release a positron. The fusion also caused neutrinos to decouple from both set.

The 2nd stage occurred when a 3rd hydrogen with 2H, so that helium is produced with now 2 protons and 1 neutron, hence 3He, and gamma radiation emitted from this 2nd fusion.

Now you know that stable helium normally have 2 protons and 2 neutrons, but the 2nd stage has only one neutron.

So the 3rd and final stage of nuclear fusion, when the 2 sets of 3He fused together.

What happened here, is that the left 3He and right 3He, will caused 1 proton (1H, hence hydrogen) from each 3He will get knock out, leaving you a single helium (4He) of 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

These 3 stages of fusions produce enormous amounts of energy, hence radiation.

That is called a proton-proton chain reaction of Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

Perhaps my explanation may confuse you, soeither pick up astronomy textbook that will explain Stellar Nucleosynthesis to you, or looked it up at Wikipedia, since it’s free.

So that you saying the nuclear fusion only occurring at the galactic centre is wrong.

There is another type of Stellar Nucleosynthesis involving stars more massive than our Sun (more than 1.3 of the Sun’s mass), that produced carbon, oxygen or nitrogen through nuclear fusion, known as CNO Cycle. This a lot harder to explain, so I am not going to try, except to say it use both 1H and 4He to fuse into heavier elements.

Nucleosynthesis can also occur when the sun run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse, when the sun turn from main sequence star into red giant. But that another story I won’t get into.

My point is that different Nucleosynthesis can occur with different types of stars, or at stage of any star’s lifecycle.

The bottom line is this, Native. Nuclear fusion occurred because of strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, not EM force. EM force have little to do with any star’s core. Yes, gamma radiation is release at the 2nd stage, but it has no bearing on fusing lighter atoms heavier ones.

Does any of that make sense to you?

Ed:

And btw, as far as I know, there is no such thing as “electromagnetic fusion”.

You can turn electricity into various other electromagnetic radiations, such as light, infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, X-ray, radio waves, by shortening or lengthening the wavelength with some devices, but none of the conversions involved “fusion”.

You are sounding more uneducated in physics than ever before.

Seriously, “electromagnetic fusion”???!!!
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The bottom line is this, Native. Nuclear fusion occurred because of strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, not EM force. EM force have little to do with any star’s core. Yes, gamma radiation is release at the 2nd stage, but it has no bearing on fusing lighter atoms heavier ones.

Does any of that make sense to you?

Ed:

And btw, as far as I know, there is no such thing as “electromagnetic fusion”.

In fact, part of the reason such high temperatures and pressures are required for fusion is that nuclei are positively charged and so repel each other electromagnetically. So, the E&M force is what has to be *overcome* to get fusion to occur.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
In fact, part of the reason such high temperatures and pressures are required for fusion is that nuclei are positively charged and so repel each other electromagnetically. So, the E&M force is what has to be *overcome* to get fusion to occur.
I think all four forces are involved with the sun’s mechanisms, and not just one force, which Native is advocating, and it is far more complex than he think.

EM may play a part, but gravitational force are also responsible for heat and pressures.

When the first stars (Population III stars) formed because bodies of hydrogen atoms coalesce together as molecular clouds, and since the cloud have masses, they will reach certain density when they eventually lead to gravitational collapse to form stars.

It is that collapse that caused the heat to rise and pressure to build, and once it reached a certain temperature, the core of that stars will trigger nuclear fusion, and so begin nucleosynthesis.

The first generation of stars were more common and more massive, so they run out of hydrogen quickly, causing shorter lifespan, resulting in heavier elements being formed when stars result in supernovae.

So newer stars, of the second generation (Population II) has some heavier elements (metals) being introduced in their formation, and they in turn create more "metals" that are introduced into the 3rd generation of stars (Population I) like our Sun.

Of course, it is a lot more complicated than that (in regarding how new stars formed), but you know that better than I do, that gravitational collapse is one of the major cause of stars starting it fusion. Strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces also played their part at atomic levels. And yes, there are EM at play too.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Since heating by sunlight is not the result of an electric current between the sun and earth, it will not be possible for me to give you an explanation in such terms.
-------------
OK, I meant "sun beams" instead of "currents". Still, electric beams affects the Earth magnetic field and atmosphere. As you also describes here:

EM radiation from the sun is however absorbed by the electrons in atoms and by polar molecules, causing a mixture of excitations, of electrons into higher energy orbitals, of interatomic vibrations and of molecular rotations.
------------
I don´t like your term "absorbed" though.

------
The electron excitations decay (by various internal conversion processes often involving collisions between atoms or parts of molecules - this is complex and beyond anyone without some knowledge of quantum chemistry) into vibrational and rotational excitations. In a short time after absorption of each photon from the sun, its energy has become part of an equilibrium energy distribution in the absorbing material, contributing to its temperature and thus making it hotter.
-----------------
When EM radiation hits atomic structures these are magnetically agitated and accelerated and this don´t happen via "collisions" as such. The "decay matter" really happens when the EM energy is dispersed or when the EM source is cut off. Just like day and night changes.

I don´t find it very likely that EM radiation from the Sun should have particle properties but only wave properties. There is no such thing as "a photon" IMO.

In a solid, there are no molecular rotations, so it is only the interatomic vibrations that contribute to the temperature. More energetic vibrational states vibrate with a greater amplitude, resulting in a greater mean distance between adjacent atoms, i.e. they move - on average - apart slightly. This results in the whole material expanding.
---------------
Agreed - with the emphasis on the EM radiation as the main cause and fundamental force.

There, you have got me to do what I said I would get you to do for yourself. It is not in the language of a barmaid, as things have moved on a bit since Rutherford's time a century ago, making this impractical. (Atomic physics would have been a doubtful chat-up line, even then, I suspect.)
----------
Thanks for your efforts :)

By the way, you would make a bloody ugly barmaid. :D
------------
Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder :)
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
This is wrong. Einstein never said anything of the sort.

When you consider that is impossible to understand General Relativity properly without some knowledge of tensor mathematics, you may realise how silly it is to imagine he could have said it.

The saying is in fact attributed to Ernest Rutherford who, unlike Einstein, was an experimental physicist, working on problems that were far easier to visualise and explain.
------------
Einstein or Rutherford - I don´t care. My sentence dealt with the problem of explaining things in a more natural way.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
-------------
OK, I meant "sun beams" instead of "currents". Still, electric beams affects the Earth magnetic field and atmosphere. As you also describes here:


------------
I don´t like your term "absorbed" though.

------
-----------------
When EM radiation hits atomic structures these are magnetically agitated and accelerated and this don´t happen via "collisions" as such. The "decay matter" really happens when the EM energy is dispersed or when the EM source is cut off. Just like day and night changes.

I don´t find it very likely that EM radiation from the Sun should have particle properties but only wave properties. There is no such thing as "a photon" IMO.


---------------
Agreed - with the emphasis on the EM radiation as the main cause and fundamental force.


----------
Thanks for your efforts :)


------------
Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder :)
Oh my oh my. You do not seem to realize that "EM radiation" is light. It also includes frequencies higher than that of visible light, and those lower. In other words it includes ultraviolet and infrared light. It peaks in the visible spectrum. And your description of what light does is of course wrong.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I think all four forces are involved with the sun’s mechanisms, and not just one force, which Native is advocating, and it is far more complex than he think.
-------------
I think modern cosmology makes it more complex than it need to be.

Of course, it is a lot more complicated than that (in regarding how new stars formed), but you know that better than I do, that gravitational collapse is one of the major cause of stars starting it fusion. Strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces also played their part at atomic levels. And yes, there are EM at play too.
-------------
Yes it is very complicated. First of all you have to explain why a cosmic cloud exists at all. And don´t mention a dispersion from a Big Bang which also haven´t any dynamic proven explanation.

It is also very complicated because science have split forces up to fit different scientific expert areas, whereas there is just 1 fundamental force which fits all areas. It all depends on EM attractive and repulsive qualities and on the actual charges and discharges of EM working in different areas and elementary conditions.

The EM is most effective in the plasmatic level as in cosmic clouds of dust and gas. The attractive force in the EM assembles this cloud in a swirling motion and heat up the gas and dust in the swirling center in a so called Z-Pinch motion. If the EM charge is sufficient enough, it reaches the nuclear stage and forms all kind of stars in the center, all depending on the available compositions in the actual dust and gas cloud. The strong EM radiation beaming out galaxies is evidence of a such a nuclear formation in the center and here even the heaviest natural metals can be formed.

So newer stars, of the second generation (Population II) has some heavier elements (metals) being introduced in their formation, and they in turn create more "metals" that are introduced into the 3rd generation of stars (Population I) like our Sun.
------------
There is no "generations of stars". Metals in stars depends only of what elements are available when a star forms from a cosmic cloud.

It is also said in the Standard Cosmology, that "heavier elements are created by super nova explosions", but there isn´t enough such explosions to form the heavy elements. Besides this, these "explosions" are evidently just EM disharges because some "super-novas" lightens up several times after one another,

Of course, it is a lot more complicated than that (in regarding how new stars formed), but you know that better than I do, that gravitational collapse is one of the major cause of stars starting it fusion.
------
Yes this is one of the Standard Cosmology Dogmas and it maybe could have been sort of correct - if the gravity force was the strongest force, but it is in fact the weakest of them all.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Oh my oh my. You do not seem to realize that "EM radiation" is light. It also includes frequencies higher than that of visible light, and those lower. In other words it includes ultraviolet and infrared light. It peaks in the visible spectrum. And your description of what light does is of course wrong.
---------------
Oh my oh my. You don´t seem to realize that light is electromagnetic radiation. And you don´t seem to realize that you don´t know what you are writing about.

I of course know that EM radiation comes in all kind of frequencies, but it´s all STILL just EM.

OK: In your world perception light doesn´t do anything - I expect you would say that light is caused by gravity too?
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
---------------
Oh my oh my. You don´t seem to realize that light is electromagnetic radiation. And you don´t seem to realize that you don´t know what you are writing about.

I of course know that EM radiation comes in all kind of frequencies, but it´s all STILL just EM.

OK: In your world perception light doesn´t do anything - I expect you would say that light is caused by gravity too?
Please, at least acquire a high school level of science competency before trying to make false claims about others.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
-------------
OK, I meant "sun beams" instead of "currents". Still, electric beams affects the Earth magnetic field and atmosphere. As you also describes here:


------------
I don´t like your term "absorbed" though.

------
-----------------
When EM radiation hits atomic structures these are magnetically agitated and accelerated and this don´t happen via "collisions" as such. The "decay matter" really happens when the EM energy is dispersed or when the EM source is cut off. Just like day and night changes.

I don´t find it very likely that EM radiation from the Sun should have particle properties but only wave properties. There is no such thing as "a photon" IMO.


---------------
Agreed - with the emphasis on the EM radiation as the main cause and fundamental force.


----------
Thanks for your efforts :)


------------
Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder :)

What rubbish. Again.

Magnetism has generally nothing at all to do with absorption of light. It is an electric dipole process in almost all cases.

And whether you "like" it or not, absorption is what it is called.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
------------
Einstein or Rutherford - I don´t care. My sentence dealt with the problem of explaining things in a more natural way.
Evidently you don't care about a lot of facts. Truth, falsehood, it's all the same to you. Current? Force? Field? what's the difference? Who cares? Whatever.

This is the thought process of an idiot.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It is also very complicated because science have split forces up to fit different scientific expert areas, whereas there is just 1 fundamental force which fits all areas. It all depends on EM attractive and repulsive qualities and on the actual charges and discharges of EM working in different areas and elementary conditions.
There is 4 fundamental interactions, because each of them have real world effects.

As an example, the Earth and Moon have their own masses, and therefore have different gravity. And due to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth, it has notable effects on the sea and ocean tides. That caused by gravity of the Moon, and it’s relative positions on the Moon’s orbit.

It is Moon’s gravitation fields that effecting the tides, not EM fields or EM radiations.

Again, I seriously think you should go back to school and learn physics, or attend university lecture on astronomy or astrophysics.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Evidently you don't care about a lot of facts. Truth, falsehood, it's all the same to you. Current? Force? Field? what's the difference? Who cares? Whatever.

This is the thought process of an idiot.
The problem with Native is that he think there are no other forces except electromagnetism.

No one here deny there are electromagnetic forces, but there are 3 other fundamental forces plus EM.

He think he is right and everyone else who disagree with him are wrong. He believed in the same stupid mass conspiracy theory that all scientists are plotting against his belief.

So he has the same foolhardy, ignorant paranoia of those Christian creationists and those Muslims who believed in “scientific miracles”.

I really care if he believed in myths. I loved myths, and I loved good storytelling. But for someone who tried to mix science with myths, and then tell us that we are wrong, because of some conspiracies or indoctrination, it just show us how arrogant he is.

I used to have one person in my ignore list, but has long since taken him off, because I generally don’t like to use the ignore list. But at this moment, his constant accusations of accusing me of being indoctrinated, I am this close of just using the ignore button again.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
I would like to see how many of our users here believe in which theory (old earth or young earth) and why.

What are the core issues in the debate between old earth and young earth?

Do you believe the earth was created in 7 days? Give your argument for or against.


An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. And omnipotent God has no limitations. An omnipotent God could have created the Universe just moments ago with all your fake memories intact.

It really comes down to belief system. You can choose a belief system where words like divine, sacred, and holy have meaning. Or you can choose to have a belief system where everything is mundane and reality is nothing more than swirling patterns of energy and mass following the laws of physics where no one pattern is any more meaningful than any other pattern.

But what you will NOT find is objective evidence suggesting one belief system is better than the other. Although, I have heard some materalists/realists argue there are no subjective judgments with objectivity. LOL! The level of blind dogma is just stunning on both sides!
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
There is 4 fundamental interactions, because each of them have real world effects.

As an example, the Earth and Moon have their own masses, and therefore have different gravity. And due to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth, it has notable effects on the sea and ocean tides. That caused by gravity of the Moon, and it’s relative positions on the Moon’s orbit.

It is Moon’s gravitation fields that effecting the tides, not EM fields or EM radiations.

Again, I seriously think you should go back to school and learn physics, or attend university lecture on astronomy or astrophysics.

If physicists were really good, they would explain why energy exists at all as opposed to nothingness. Just give us one good miracle and we can explain the rest is what the physicists say.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence.
Two huge problems with your statement, here.

First, if god put fake fossil and make fake carbon dating, then doesn’t that make God, the god of lies and deceptions.

If these are all lies then wouldn’t all these religions and their scriptures are essentially all lies.

Second, like every other creationists, you don’t seem to understand that radiocarbon (C-14) dating is just one radiometric dating methods, and it is never used to date fossils older than 55,000 years old.

There are more reliable radiometric dating methods than C-14, like
  1. Uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating
  2. Potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating
Both have much longer half-life, and therefore provide more reliable readings.

The K-Ar have half life of one billion years, while U-Pb, depending on the isotope, can have half-life as much as 4.5 billion years.

So both can be used to confirm dates of rocks and fossils.

So for anything during the Holocene period, using radiocarbon is fine and reliable. But fossilisation don't normally occur less than 10,000 years ago.

The older the find, the better chance any life being fossilised. So about 50,000 years old fossils, then it should be ok, but after this, using radiocarbon don't give out reliable estimates.

So anything like over 1 million years old, you would use the K-Ar dating, not radiocarbon.

So to date dinosaur fossils, palaeotonologists would use K-Ar dating method, not C-14. And U-Pb dating is another alternative, that's even more reliable than K-Ar.

U-Pb have been in use since the early 1900s (I think it was 1905 or 1907, I don't remember when exactly), and it predated the use of C-14 in the 1940s.

Scientists all know this, but creationists seemed to have not caught on with the current technology. It is rather absurd that creationists are still using the radiocarbon dating argument, when scientists have been using other methods (K-Ar and U-Pb, and the Luminescence dating) to date fossils and rocks.

Have creationists heard of Luminescence dating?

Luminescence dating is used to date rocks and minerals, when was the last time they were exposed to sunlight. This method revealed if the minerals were disturbed or not.

Why is that? Ignorance? Or wilful ignorance?
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
If physicists were really good, they would explain why energy exists at all as opposed to nothingness. Just give us one good miracle and we can explain the rest is what the physicists say.
What has this reply of yours have anything to do with what I wrote?

I did not mention "nothingness".

Sorry, but we are not talking about the same subject here, so I don't really have anything to say here.

Why are you bringing up nothingness?

Matters are not nothing. Particles are not nothing. Fields and waves are not nothing. Energy are not nothing. Forces are not nothing.

If I ask you for spanner, will you give a feather?

Either stay on topic, or explain why you need to bring nothingness on this conversation.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Please, at least acquire a high school level of science competency before trying to make false claims about others.
-------
When reading the dogmas, contradictions, inconsistent statements and ad hoc assumptions in the (Low) Standard Cosmology, I´m much better off having af free and critical mind, thank you.
 
Top