Survey: Young Earth or Old Earth?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 07:19 AM) [snapback]251378[/snapback]</div>

Maybe God. That's outside the realm of science to address, and most scientists will fully admit this. The point is, there's no way to scientifically say that it was God or not. If you want to believe that it was God, then there's no generally accepted data that anyone can present to prove that it wasn't (at least as of now).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 07:19 AM) [snapback]251378[/snapback]</div>

This is actually pretty straightforward (at least as these things go). It involves the difference between expansion of space and travel through space. The equations of General Relativity say that you can't travel faster than the speed of light through space. However, the expansion of the universe is not necessarily governed by these rules. Also, Big Bang theory states that, very early on in the universe, the forces (gravity included) didn't work in the same ways as they do today. I'm not an expert at this early-universe cosmology, but my understanding is that inflation (the super-fast expansion of the universe at early times) is totally consistant with the equations of General Relativity.

I'll just add that I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of these details change; none of what we know about the early universe is directly observable (although it is built on reasonable assuptions about observations). However, the general picture of a universe that formed >10 Gyr ago and has been expanding since then is pretty firm. The idea that the speed of light is (more or less) constant is even more firm (and Setterfield's data is certainly not going to be the data that overturns this theory). What bugs me is when creation "scientists" pick one little, miniscule piece of information that doesn't fit in nicely to the picture and use that to say, "SEE! GOD CREATED IT ALL!" It's totally a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Just because your Prius gets a paint chip, doesn't mean it's not a car anymore.

I'll just state again that I have no problem with someone believing in God and believing that God has some hand in the universe (I believe this to some extent). However, that is belief and is not supported by scientifically-obtained data. This doesn't mean it's not right; it just means it's not science.

 

There is no fuse to light... It's a self reciprocating process... expansion, contraction, BANG, expansion, contraction, BANG.... What's so difficult about that?

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 8 2006, 10:03 AM) [snapback]251415[/snapback]</div>

Actually, the data points to a "open" universe these days. No Big Crunch. To steal (and adapt) a line from TS Eliot, "This is how the universe ends, not with a bang but a whimper."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 8 2006, 10:41 AM) [snapback]251431[/snapback]</div>

So, let it be "open"... black "holes" will ultimately devour the universe anyway, expand, contract, BANG, repeat... What I want to comprehend is the infinite "ether" for which this all happens within (supposedly anyway :lol: )...

...or without... h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 8 2006, 06:37 AM) [snapback]251407[/snapback]</div>

Well that's called peer review and scientists do it to themselves day in and day out. Now your labeling of all scientist that believe in God and creation as Creation "Scientist" is nothing but a ploy to discredit their credentials. BTW it's not just one minuscule piece of information it is a litany of information and assumptions that are being challenged. Would you rather we not challenge scientist? Consider this . . .

I don't know that anything has been done since then to address this problem but if you find something please let me know. If your thinking of Radiocarbon or Radiometric dating, be aware those methods have a dubious record themselves.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]251666[/snapback]</div>

Bullshit. That is not peer review. Peer review is saying, "you need to address this because it doesn't make sense." Not, "I've found a couple details that have some problems, so we need to scrap the whole theory."

When did I say that all scientists that believe in God (and creation) are creation "scientists"? What I'm railing against are those "scientists" who come to the table already knowing "the answer" (i.e. God). I have no problem if the data leads you to the conclusion that the Earth was created 6K years ago. I have no problem if the data leads you to the conclusion that Adam and Eve were the father and mother of all mankind. What I have a problem with is religious fundamentalists who cloak themselves in "science," and engage in a type of pseudo-science that involves picking apart problems by only choosing the data that agrees with them. I'm glad you brought Setterfield up, because he's a great example of this type of junk science.

I'm all for a "challenge" and I think by challenging what we think we know is the only way that we can dig deeper toward the truth. However, the only fair way to challenge the science is with science; not religion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]251666[/snapback]</div>

I don't know enough about geology to really comment, but I will just say that carbon dating is based on a very simple physical principle, so it seems to me that it can't be that far off. But, I'm sure that there are much more informed people than me who can comment on this.

I will say that the age of our Sun is very well determined from solar modeling and helioseismology and it's farily conclusively ~4.6 Gyr. . . certainly older than 4 Gyr. . . although, for the purposes of this conversation, I guess it's enough to say older than 1 Myr

One additional point on Setterfield: he never recieved his PhD and, in fact, never finished his undergrad education. I'm not saying that this prohibits him from doing good work (I know Creation folks will say that he never "drank the Kool-Aid"), but I think that grad work really does teach one about the scientific method and how to be objective when coming to conclusions.

EDIT: I did a search and found this. Take a look at the bottom for some points addressing many of the "concerns" of young Earthers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]251666[/snapback]</div>

do you know what peer review is? or did you just read it somewhere and decide to toss that term around to make it look like you know something?

next. there is no such thing as a "creation scientist" because it CAN NOT BE PROVEN. there is no physical evidence of a god, science is based upon phyiscal evidence. how many times do we have to run around this circle?

your "challenges" as you put it, if they all follow the trend of what you've cited to date, are either incorrectly cited or junk science. give us something LEGITIMATE that isn't 30 years old and is published as an actual research article. you go on and on about how there are SO MANY pieces of evidence and have yet to cite one legitimate nature or science article.

 

radiocarbon dating variability is often due to method. E. M. Scott, Radiocarbon 45, 135 (2003) conducted a large study (92 laboratories) and found that 87% of statistical outliers in measurement came from a small number of labs- that happened to utilize liquid scintillation counting to measure the radioactive content of the sample.

it's well known that we can't measure accurately beyond give or take 50k years with 14C- but we do have isotopes with much longer half lives that will have residual activity after longer periods of time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 8 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]251764[/snapback]</div>

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
The Sign of Four (1890)

Please post the cite you think is "junk science" or should I accept it upon your say so?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 8 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]251773[/snapback]</div>

What is the other 13% attributed too and do you think 13% is significant? <_<

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]251774[/snapback]</div>

throwing out data points (ie in the Setterfield case) without valid statistical testing, because they were "aberrant" simply to make your data fit is:

-scientific misconduct
-unethical
-flat out lying
-junk science


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]251774[/snapback]</div>

standard calibration
solvent
technique issues

significant? they determined about 10% of all data points were outliers. 13% of 10% is 1.3% error.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]251774[/snapback]</div>

look. give citations or your argument has no backbone. end of story.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 8 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]251774[/snapback]</div>

I think you misread galaxee's post. 87% of the statistical outliers came from a few labs. Not 87% of the data points.

I'm not going to reproduce it here, but you can go look at one of Ned Wright's pages here if you want some references to the age of the universe. Using radioactive dating in stars is particularly facinating, since it relies on many, many fewer assumptions than the other methods but still agrees on an age, more or less.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 8 2006, 07:12 PM) [snapback]251778[/snapback]</div>

Here, here. If you want to use science to bolster your religious arguments, you've gotta play by the rules of science.

 

You guys don't recognize that quote?!? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 9 2006, 04:31 AM) [snapback]252044[/snapback]</div>

I recognize the quote, but it just seemed like a non-sequitor. To the extent that it relates to our conversation at all, it seems to bolster the "old earth" claims; I mean, the fact that the Earth is hundreds of thousands of times older than human civilization?! Crazy. But, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

Once again, however, the point is: if you want to scientifically demonstrate your point, you must use science.

 

"The most widely-used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the "known age" of the rock strata in which they are found. On the other hand, the most widely-used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the "known age" of the fossils they contain. This is an outrageous case of circular reasoning, and geologists are well aware of the problem. J.E. O'Rourke, for example, concedes:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results" (American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51)."


WOW! I went away for the two days when you bring up Geology! ::sigh::

I'll respond to this bit here this evening regardless, because I think that it's a great example of how small a logical step it is to make that we've got a handle on using fossils for age determination. Before I talk about dating, though, (need to pull out the isotopes text) I want to see if you are actually willing to be convinced of anything we take the time to explain to you. Do you still support C-Decay? You have been unable to use any scientific data of any value in defense of it. If you still do, we have to know that not even completely nullifying your argument will convince you. I (as have you, I'd bet) have actually spent a decent about of time looking into this stuff, part because it interests me, and part because you seem like a more or less reasonable person, and I'd love to be part of the group that makes you realize that it just doesn't make sense to support a young earth. If there is really no changing your mind, even on the smallest unsupported detail, I'm not terribly interested in the debate anymore.

Now,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 9 2006, 09:42 AM) [snapback]252085[/snapback]</div>

yep, that's about how i feel too...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 9 2006, 09:42 AM) [snapback]252085[/snapback]</div>

Welcome to FHOP!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 9 2006, 11:11 AM) [snapback]252122[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the post, Daniel. I was questioning the point of even taking part in these silly debates anymore. As a scientist, when some non-scientist dismisses what I say with, "you don't know anything" (in another thread- great comeback, huh?), I really have to wonder why I am wasting my time even talking to people whose minds are made up and who are so anti-science and anti-reason. There's no way, and no reason, to even bother getting them to consider a rational and reasonable dialog that conflicts with their faith. But if it's of any use to those who are openly questioning these issues, I'll continue to participate (maybe)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 9 2006, 06:42 AM) [snapback]252085[/snapback]</div>

Most of the time I'm a reasonable man just not easily convinced. <_< Also, as surprising as this is to me, I have to agree with Daniel again, (ack twice in one day I do believe that the end is coming soon ). I am a man of faith but I don't agree with all that my denomination's says concerning the Bible my faith comes from the Bible's interpretation of the Bible. Other than that the rest of that post by Daniel was, again, well said. Can't we just argue for the sake of the argument? I mean it's a great subject, with worthwhile opponents on both sides very interesting and at times surprising evidence. Besides what's the worst that could happen? We might learn something or change someone's mind?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 9 2006, 06:50 AM) [snapback]252091[/snapback]</div>

Com'on Galaxee I know you want another shot at me. Besides how can you let the stuff I say go unchallenged?

Wildkow

p.s. OK now that, Hopefully, I have you both hooked again, neither one of you refuted the point I made. Regardless of how old the evidence or facts or research is, do or do not the Evo Scientist date rocks and fossils by the method I described?