Is there any scientific evidence for a young earth?
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Is there any scientific evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old or less?
There's as much evidence that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years as there is for the notion that the earth is at the center of the universe; is flat with a fixed dome separating the waters of the sky from the waters on the land, and; is riding upon the backs of an infinite amount of stacked turtles. That is, there's just enough for the crack-pots and the mentally ill. Or the willfully stupid and/or ignorant.
There is no error of radiometric dating. There are a lot of erroneous attempts to discredit it, and they have all been refuted.
And why should I care about non-existing evidence that you think you can find about the age of the sun supporting YEC?
Who told you there are no facts in science? A scientific fact is an objective verifiable observation.
Please present this evidence that you think falsifies radiometric dating and the evidence that supports a 6000 year old sun.
Do you have any idea why each half life is exactly the amount it is? In other words, do you know why each unstable elements decays at a certain speed and no slower and no faster? Can you give me a formula to determine the half life of an element before you actually measure it in a labratory? The answer to all the questions above is that you cannot do it. If you have no idea what determines the speed of decay, how in the world can you make the statement that decay has always and always will remain at a constant rate. A increase the speed of light is one way to accelerate decay. If you look at the fact that red shifts of distant stars are quantized, then you have some reason to suspect that light speed was not always the same as today.
Slogan/motto:
The Church was not founded on the Bible. The Bible was assembled by the Church.
Reputation:
July 27th, 2011, 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire
A increase the speed of light is one way to accelerate decay. If you look at the fact that red shifts of distant stars are quantized, then you have some reason to suspect that light speed was not always the same as today.
I'd like to read more about that. Can you provide a link to a scientific source for this information?
The earth is not 10,000 years old but it isn't billions of years old either. Take the layers of ice on antartica and greenland and allow for a few layers to be combined into a single year due to multiple storms. That is about 200,000 that is also the age for mitochondrial eve. I would say that antartica started accumulating the ice layers as soon as it got near its present position and did not need the southern ocean to be fully opened as it is today. Radiometric dating places the formation of pangea 280 million years ago. Antartica has been in its current position since then and maybe close to it before then. That means 300 million years according to radiometric dating can collapse to roughly 200,000 years. The amount of time collapse is even greater for the cambrian to permian time period. That 240 million year period would then correspond to a real time period of 75,000 years if you consider the rate of decay has been declining assymptotically since at least the hadean. I would put the age of the earth based on my former calculations at about 300,000 years. I know of no scientific evidence that would force a date earlier than that other than radiometric dating and that is only if you assume a constant rate of decay. If you do not know what determines the rate of decay, you cannot dogmatically state there is no way for it to it to ever have been greater than it is today.
Slogan/motto:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Reputation:
July 28th, 2011, 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire
Do you have any idea why each half life is exactly the amount it is? In other words, do you know why each unstable elements decays at a certain speed and no slower and no faster? Can you give me a formula to determine the half life of an element before you actually measure it in a labratory? The answer to all the questions above is that you cannot do it. If you have no idea what determines the speed of decay, how in the world can you make the statement that decay has always and always will remain at a constant rate. A increase the speed of light is one way to accelerate decay. If you look at the fact that red shifts of distant stars are quantized, then you have some reason to suspect that light speed was not always the same as today.
Except that the speed of light cannot be go faster, as is shown by Einstein's theory.
"The speed of light c is said to be the speed limit of the universe because nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light with respect to you. A common way of describing this situation is to say that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and more force must be exerted to produce a given acceleration. There are difficulties with the "changing mass" perspective, and it is generally preferrable to say that the relativistic momentum and relativistic energy approach infinity at the speed of light. Since the net applied force is equal to the rate of change of momentum and the work done is equal to the change in energy, it would take an infinite time and an infinite amount of work to accelerate an object to the speed of light. "
And no, you cannot predict the half-life of a single radioactive nucleus due to quantum theory and the uncertainty principle. However, radioactive decay is a stochastic phenomenon, which means that once you deal with a many nuclei then the laws of probability makes it predictable based on the average time it takes for one nucleus to decay, which turns out to be extremely precise. The half-life times of the radioactive isotopes are so precise that they are considered to be physical constants.
"The tiny nuclear size compared to the atom and the enormity of the forces which act within it make it almost totally impervious to the outside world. The half-life is independent of the physical state (solid, liquid, gas), temperature, pressure, the chemical compound in which the nucleus finds itself, and essentially any other outside influence. It is independent of the chemistry of the atomic surface, and independent of the ordinary physical factors of the outside world. The only thing which can alter the half-life is direct nuclear interaction with a particle from outside, e.g., a high energy collision in an accelerator. "
"By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:78-79)
“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.”
― Augustine
Last edited by Selaphiel; July 28th, 2011 at 04:04 AM.
The earth is not 10,000 years old but it isn't billions of years old either. Take the layers of ice on antartica and greenland and allow for a few layers to be combined into a single year due to multiple storms. That is about 200,000 that is also the age for mitochondrial eve. I would say that antartica started accumulating the ice layers as soon as it got near its present position and did not need the southern ocean to be fully opened as it is today. Radiometric dating places the formation of pangea 280 million years ago. Antartica has been in its current position since then and maybe close to it before then. That means 300 million years according to radiometric dating can collapse to roughly 200,000 years. The amount of time collapse is even greater for the cambrian to permian time period. That 240 million year period would then correspond to a real time period of 75,000 years if you consider the rate of decay has been declining assymptotically since at least the hadean. I would put the age of the earth based on my former calculations at about 300,000 years. I know of no scientific evidence that would force a date earlier than that other than radiometric dating and that is only if you assume a constant rate of decay. If you do not know what determines the rate of decay, you cannot dogmatically state there is no way for it to it to ever have been greater than it is today.
No we can't, but you are the one making an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. It is up to you to demonstrate in the labratory that light can be made to go faster than it does in nature. Or that the rate of radioactive decay can be speeded up. Demonstrate that variation of the processes that main stream science sees as constant is even possible before you postulate that it did vary. All we see, when we look at the real world around us, is absolute constancy in the rates of radioactive decay and the speed of light. You claim that these things are not constant. So show us.
The more serious problem is what does it say about God if the Biblical account is literally true, and all this vast amount of evidence exists to contradict it? It says that God, the creator of the universe, is a deceiver. Scientists are not "misinterpting" the evidence, they are reading the book of nature clearly. God wrote that "book" with His own hand. If he lied in it, then God can't be trusted.
That God lies to us is unacceptable. That YEC have misinterpeted their Holy Book and tried to make it something it is not, is far more acceptable.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
July 28th, 2011, 07:49 AM
Quote:
Do you have any idea why each half life is exactly the amount it is? In other words, do you know why each unstable elements decays at a certain speed and no slower and no faster? Can you give me a formula to determine the half life of an element before you actually measure it in a labratory? The answer to all the questions above is that you cannot do it. If you have no idea what determines the speed of decay, how in the world can you make the statement that decay has always and always will remain at a constant rate. A increase the speed of light is one way to accelerate decay. If you look at the fact that red shifts of distant stars are quantized, then you have some reason to suspect that light speed was not always the same as today.
Indeed, the theory led to a rather interesting experiment. Rhenium 187 has a very long half life (billions of years, I think) but given the above, it was theorized that this could be greatly speeded up by chemical changes, due to the particular electron configuration of Rhenium.
Rhenium 187 atoms, stripped of all their electrons, have a half-life of just a few decades. This doesn't work with other elements, however, and it's hard to see how a bare nucleus could happen in nature.
The earth is not 10,000 years old but it isn't billions of years old either. Take the layers of ice on antartica and greenland and allow for a few layers to be combined into a single year due to multiple storms. That is about 200,000 that is also the age for mitochondrial eve. I would say that antartica started accumulating the ice layers as soon as it got near its present position and did not need the southern ocean to be fully opened as it is today. Radiometric dating places the formation of pangea 280 million years ago. Antartica has been in its current position since then and maybe close to it before then. That means 300 million years according to radiometric dating can collapse to roughly 200,000 years. The amount of time collapse is even greater for the cambrian to permian time period. That 240 million year period would then correspond to a real time period of 75,000 years if you consider the rate of decay has been declining assymptotically since at least the hadean. I would put the age of the earth based on my former calculations at about 300,000 years. I know of no scientific evidence that would force a date earlier than that other than radiometric dating and that is only if you assume a constant rate of decay. If you do not know what determines the rate of decay, you cannot dogmatically state there is no way for it to it to ever have been greater than it is today.
How long did it take for the earth to form, cool down and Antarctica to move to it's current position and start making ice? just curious.......
Make A Difference Day Award Winner - Outstanding National Project - 2000
How long did it take for the earth to form, cool down and Antarctica to move to it's current position and start making ice? just curious.......
It took about three days for the geology of the earth to form. There was day one and day3 that i know of. There may have been some fine tuning of the crust on the day the plants were created. There was no cooling down period. The only geothermal heat was driven by radioactivity that was carefully placed for specific purposes and the circulation of fresh water was one of them. But what you are referring to actually happened. It was started by the late heavy bombardment ( noah's year long flood and associated catastrophes like meteors crashing into the earth on a daily basis for 40 straight days) This indeed produced a ton of heat and totally obliterated the crust into sand and pebbles with maybe a boulder or two surviving. There was a ocean of lava underneath a thick and severely cracked primodial ocean floor even though there was no ocean that existed prior to this event. That floor was underneath the vast subterranean sea that was itself underneath one continuous global continent that only had lakes and rivers but no oceans and whose water was circulated by hydrothermal heat. This situation did indeed cool down after the late heavy bombardment. The time of the late heavy bombardment is from 4.2 billion years to 3.9 billion years on a radiometric dating basis. I believe antarctica was close to its present position by the time of the carboniferous about 300 million years ago. That represents a span of time of 3.6 billion years radiometric wise. The amount of time collapse to real time is assymptotic so i would guess the real amount of time for the start of the cool down after the bombardment until the late carboniferous would be 30,000 years. This may seem bizzare but the whole archean was less than 2,00 years in length on such an assymptotic scale.
Indeed, the theory led to a rather interesting experiment. Rhenium 187 has a very long half life (billions of years, I think) but given the above, it was theorized that this could be greatly speeded up by chemical changes, due to the particular electron configuration of Rhenium.
Rhenium 187 atoms, stripped of all their electrons, have a half-life of just a few decades. This doesn't work with other elements, however, and it's hard to see how a bare nucleus could happen in nature.
And you still havent answered any of the questions. What formula is there to determine what a half life will be before you actually measure it in the lab?
No we can't, but you are the one making an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. It is up to you to demonstrate in the labratory that light can be made to go faster than it does in nature. Or that the rate of radioactive decay can be speeded up. Demonstrate that variation of the processes that main stream science sees as constant is even possible before you postulate that it did vary. All we see, when we look at the real world around us, is absolute constancy in the rates of radioactive decay and the speed of light. You claim that these things are not constant. So show us.
The more serious problem is what does it say about God if the Biblical account is literally true, and all this vast amount of evidence exists to contradict it? It says that God, the creator of the universe, is a deceiver. Scientists are not "misinterpting" the evidence, they are reading the book of nature clearly. God wrote that "book" with His own hand. If he lied in it, then God can't be trusted.
That God lies to us is unacceptable. That YEC have misinterpeted their Holy Book and tried to make it something it is not, is far more acceptable.
you cannot make light go any faster. Its speed is based on the very fabric of space itself or rather the vacuum. This is controlled by God and was set when he streched out the heavens in the beginning.
Slogan/motto:
The Church was not founded on the Bible. The Bible was assembled by the Church.
Reputation:
July 28th, 2011, 09:21 AM
Here's an article from the Institute for Creation Research, denouncing that ridiculous Setterfield hypothesis of c-decay, and criticizing his especially "selective" data collection.
Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo
Linear Mode
