Talk:Jurassic

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Intro

This needs an edit. It's not 'according to evolutionary scientists' it's 'according to geologists', and there should be a citation. However, the edit page doesn't seem to be the same as the article, so I don't want to edit it myself. Britinme 6:30pm 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Why does this article even have a section about the YEC views? I know this point has been used elsewhere before, but shouldn't this just be to define what the jurassic period is? It doesn't matter if it's an idea to do with evolution or YEC, it's a defined time period. If you were to talk about the Industrial Age, you wouldn't make a claim that an anti-industrial person doesn't believe it happened. Jrssr5 14:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I would agree, even though some do not believe the evidence does not mean that the terminology should not be presented. The Jurassic period is not a time scale created by evolutionists, it was created by geologists. --TimS 14:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
There's that too. I also noticed CPAdmin1 reverted my edit, so I've asked him to reply as to why. Jrssr5 14:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, a geologist does not have to believe in evolution to believe that the earth is millions of years old. James Hutton, in 1786, presented that the earth was older than what was believed. This is almost 50 years before Darwin published his first work. I think the first line should be replaced for it is false.--TimS 14:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

For everyone's information, I did a different version of this article, which Conservative reverted. I have been in discussion with him since about having my version reinstated. Philip J. Rayment 06:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip, That looks to be one of the best edits I have seen for this page.--TimS 10:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. It was probably a bit brief, but it was a start that could have been expanded on. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Young earth?

It says that earth is young, but that is because the layers of the earth are constantly changing

Easy, easy, not need to bomb me, but the Carbon-14 tests proves that there are things older than 10000 years, and another "prove": god didn't say that :D Schwarze 20:53, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Carbon-14 dating is based on the presumption that Biblical history is wrong (it assumes no Flood, therefore assumes not effect on the C14 balance in the atmosphere from the Flood), so cannot be used to disprove the Flood, as the argument assumes what it attempts to prove. Philip J. Rayment 05:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My point I'm not disproving the flood, i saw a good doccumentary explaining it, And the C14 test is based on the level of decay of the Carbon, not on the quantity, but Earth cannot be stable in 6000 years, it's still pretty active geoloically. And that god didn't mentioned the BIG BANG doesn't mean it didn't existed, it means that it was't god's point, God didn't talked about polar bears, atoms, superstring theory and Dolphins, yet they exist, if god wanted to metion every friggin' thing that exists in the universe, the bible wouldn't be finished by now, and the most important: we wouldn't need to do all that helluva effort to arrive here, to nuclear fission, flight and modern medical cures, it would have been just plain easy to just say "God said that, now STFU" and just relax, but God gave us a "starting point": The Bible. It gave us that book saying "the rest is up to you", and he did great. We started questioning the universe and developing new technologies to understand it, some of them were used wisely, some not, but at the end we are here :D Schwarze 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW:Where the heck does the bible mention the age of earth? Schwarze 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

C14 is based on the C12:C14 ratio, which is determined by measuring the quantities of each. The quantities are affected by how much decay there has been.
You are right that God didn't mention the Big Bang doesn't mean it doesn't happen. However, that He did mention things which are incompatible with the Big Bang does mean that it didn't happen (assuming you trust God more than man). We started studying (rather than "questioning") the universe because we had a Christian worldview that told us that God's creation was worthy and amenable of study.
For the age of the Earth, see Date of Creation.
Philip J. Rayment 06:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Where does God said something that doesn't coincide with the big bang? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aknot (talk)

For one, the span of time from the start of creation to the appearance of man was under six days. For another, the Earth was created before the stars. I'm sure that you won't agree that this is the way it happened, but hopefully you'll agree that (a) God (or at least the Bible) does say these things, and (b) that these are incompatible with the Big Bang, thus agreeing that my claim that you were questioning is correct. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


Plot hole: If earth was created AFTER the stars, the light of stars wouldnt have reached us yet (the only way to make it have sense is with the B theory) and most of the sky would be black. And in 6 days from the Big Bang, most of the elements needed for water, life; the light and all the stuff that's good were already created —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aknot (talk)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)


YEC Pwnage:

1.light doesn't travel at infinite spped. nothing does. it travels at 300.000km/second

2.We are f**king far away from stars ( =light source)

3.light-year = the quantity of distance the light can travel in a year.

4. most of the things we see are a lot farther away than 6000 light-years (i.e.: whirlpol galaxy = 23 millions of light-years away, NGC 1300 = 69 millions light-years away)

5. 1 light year = 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers, 5,879,000,000,000 miles

6.the distance from the whirlpool galaxy to here is 274.361.183.704.843.200.000 kilometers (no joke)

7.The light would need 29 million years at 300.000 kilometers per second, (186.000 miles per second) to arrive at the earth.

8.according to you, the earth was created before the stars, and it has 6000 years, in 6000 years, the light from the whirlpool galaxy still would need to travel 274.361.183.704.843.194.000 more kilometers (a crapload of time and space) to reach our ol' good ball of mud (earth <_<), and thus, we couldn't see it because the LIGHT ITSELF is far away w00t!

9.we can actually see the Wirhlpool galaxy Image taken from the Hubble space telescope

10.wiki article on speed of light

11.pwned

Aknot 17:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Aknot, how about before you post in such a smug way, you actually try learning a bit about the idea that you so readily dismiss? It's not good form to reject something on supposedly reasonable grounds when you have so little understanding of the thing that you are rejecting. For an answer to your objection, please read this. Then even if you still don't agree, please come back and apologise for being so dismissive. Philip J. Rayment 23:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Philip, how about actual€time dilation) as solutions to the age problem for YECs. C-decay has never been observed, so that's not a solution. Time dilation is only significant near a massive amount of matter (like in the vicinity of a star) -- that's definitely not the case for light traveling through empty space.--Mackronking2 00:37, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
What makes you think that I don't understand it? Maybe you should read it properly. It talks about three possibilities, and doesn't accept the first two (including c-decay). Not being observed, however, should not be an issue; lots of things in cosmology have never been observed. Humphrey's proposal has a massive amount of gravity; a small universe centred on the vicinity of Earth. Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, if you understand it, then it should be simple to resolve our argument. Simply integrate the time dt using GR equations as a light ray travels from a distant galaxy (say, z=5) to Earth (z=0). If you're right, then the total time should be less than 6000 years. If I'm right, then the total time should be on the order of 10s of billions of years. It'll all come down to two simple numbers. I will do the same if you like. I await your (numerical) response.--Mackronking2 08:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
I understand the concept, not the maths, unfortunately. But even so I can question yours. 10s of billions of years is what the Big Bang theory would give, which assumes an unbounded universe. But Humphrey's idea is for a bounded universe, and an initially-small one. Even without doing the maths it's clear that the time would not be 10s of billions of years. Philip J. Rayment 09:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't make sense. Time dilation is a local effect. It depends on the gravity at the point in space that the light is propagating at. It has nothing to do with a bounded or unbounded universe, only the amount of gravity along the light propagation line. Again, simple integrating the GR equations along such a path should give the answer. Why doesn't Humphrey just do the math? The math is done in many GR textbooks and the answer is on the order of billions of years.--Mackronking2 09:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
You clearly do not understand white hole cosmology. We're not talking about time dilation in the present space-time continuum. We're talking about conditions as they existed during the initial explosion of matter from that now-closed white hole. The matter was so densely packed that the entire space-time continuum was fundamentally different. It did not have the three dimensions of space and one of time that it has today. Instead it has four dimensions of space and none of time. We're not talking about time retardation. We're talking about complete and absolute stasis of time. Indeed, time qua time did not exist during that event.
And then, as the matter began to thin out at the edges, a conventional space-time continuum came to be. Time began to flow at the edges--but not near the center. So that--by our own clocks--the universe beyond our galaxy simply endured accelerated aging. And on Day Four of creation, the stars appeared for the first time--and set in recognizable patterns so that they could reliably give us seasons. By this model, many of those stars had existed (though most of them existed in our galaxy and are therefore much younger than are the quasars and so on in the far beyond), and the light from them would reach us shortly after time qua time came to be on earth.
Many other arguments remain to show that this galaxy is certainly much younger than the geologists insist. They are beyond the scope of an article on the "Jurassic period." But they strongly militate against conventional geologic understanding. --TerryHTalk 09:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

You are of course forgetting that our galaxy is at least 80,000 light years wide... MiddleMan

The article I linked to was written at layman's level. What makes you think that Russell Humphreys hasn't done the maths? See his book, Starlight and Time, and/or search for some of his published papers, such as in the Journal of Creation.
Bounded vs. unbounded is significant because an unbounded universe has gravity the same in all directions (local effects excepted) because there is no centre, whereas a bounded universe has the centre of gravity at the centre of the universe (assuming a roughly even spread of matter).
Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?

Stars never existed? why would God create something useless? that would not be good, in fact, it would be cruelty, humanity has always seen stars millions of light years away and asked if there was something there and spent billions and a lot on effort on that. Also, if light was created on-the-run, why it would still to shine? <- i like this tehory XD it has comedical value

white holes are doubtful, it violates laws of entropy. (second one) and if it was reduced to nothin, then why it was touching earth? (altough is a lot more convincing than the first), and if it was a hole THAT massive to reduce time THAT much in earth, it would alo have affected stars at milions of light years away in it's "shelter" of time, right? back to the original question

The only solid plot-hole is that earth was not created IN the big bang; even 300.000 years later, all there was was a bunch of hydrogen atoms, even if it was in a distorted time, the atoms in areas were time is shorter would need to form planets and stars, right, and the stars would need to explode in supernovas to make the heavier elements (needed for earth and humans), and to make the gas clouds (nebula) collapse and create more stars, wich would atrcact matter; and after a VERY long explanation, create earth! :D

I was almost convinced.

And why i need to apologize? i never insulted you or YEC (to "pwn" it is not an insult) and censored all swearing (wich wasn't offensive to anyone) Aknot 13:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It quoted Humphreys and not Hawking because it was Humphreys, not Hawking, who came up with the theory.
I didn't ask you to apologise for insulting me or YEC, but for your dismissive tone, given that YECs have answers for these things which you haven't even bothered to find out before you dismissed the idea.
Most of the rest of your post was barely intelligible.
Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


Ok, so if you didn't understood something as simple as that post, then i doubt you understood YOUR post (BTW, thnx mackroking, you saved me the maths ;) ) and, DO YOU BELIEVE IN BIG BANG OR NOT!?, your first 3 posts denied BB, and then, you post a link at something that clearly defends BB theory, and did the time suspension lasted 4.404 billion years??? wtf was that white hole? a hole that big would have vaporized in that time, and would have left a CLEAR distance between those who were INSIDE the time suspension and those who weren't.

And i wonder, if there was a total time stopping, how the hell earth was created? and if we were OUTSIDE the time pause, then how can we see other stars?? damn, humprey (or the guy who wrote that article)definitively doesn't know how to explain (he's like bohr), at least i UNDERSTAND hawking oh, and i said hawking because i would want to know what other physcicist think of thatAknot 12:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not believe in the Big Bang, and the linked item does not defend the Big Bang, even if there are superficial similarities. How was Earth created? By God. Philip J. Rayment 09:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Whether you believe in it is irrelevant. Numerical predictions from the Big Bang agree with the Hubble relationship between velocity and distance for galaxies, with the pattern of temperature anistropities of the cosmic microwave backround, and the primordial element abdundances. Show me another theory that gives the same level of numerical prediction as compared to reality. Whatever theory you profess instead better be able to account for at least these observations in order for it to be valid description of reality. --Mackronking2 10:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Whether or not I believe the Big Bang is TOTALLY relevant—to Aknot's question of whether or not I believe in the Big Bang!
The Big Bang theory is not the unassailable theory that you make it out to be. See here for some reasons, and if you want further reading, see here.
Philip J. Rayment 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Philip, I never said the Big Bang theory was unassailable. I'm willing to believe in any theory that does the better job in explaining reality. To me, that means giving numerical predicitions for such things as the temperature anisotropities of the cosmic microwave background and the primoridal Li/H elemntal abundances. If you think there is a better theory, then just quote the Li/H ratio predicted by that theory and compare it to observations of the Li/H ratios in stellar atmospheres. There's no point in arguing with words; just let the numerical predictions confirm which theory is the best description of reality.--Mackronking2 11:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
How do you suggest that I predict the Li/H ratio of "He also made the stars" (Genesis 1:16)? Clearly, God could make the ratio exactly as it is now, so the prediction would be 100% spot on. But that's not the real issue, is it? The real question is whether or not you are willing to admit God creating them as a possibility. Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I couldn't have said it better myself. Your theory can't even predict the Li/H observed ratio. So on the one hand, we have a theory (Big Bang) that predicts the observed Li/H abundance ratio measured in stellar atmospheres. On the other hand, we have a theory (God did it) that makes no prediction whatsoever of the observed Li/H ratio observed in reality. Which comes closer to describing reality? The theory that makes a predicition that agrees with observations, or the theory that makes no predicition and can't explain the observations? That's a rhetorical question, since I think anyone reading this will understand my point.--Mackronking2 11:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
You've twisted what I said. I didn't say that the creationist view cannot explain the observations, nor that your view better describes reality. The question is how that ratio came to be (history), not what it is (observation). Both ideas agree on the observations, and both can explain the origin of the ratio. The only difference may be that the creationary view might not (I didn't say "cannot") be able to "predict" the ratio from other information. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Your theory (God did it) cannot explain the origin of the observation. It's a tautology. It says the Li/H ratio is what it is because that's what it is. There is no predicition to your theory. It cannot be tested. It cannot be confirmed. It does not lead to any understanding. You can quote your theory for any observation in life and it doesn't bring you any closer to understanding reality. It's like saying "the craters on the Moon have the numbers and positions that they do because God made the Moon that way". No. They have the numbers and positions that they do because that was the particular history of meteorite impacts over time that gave rise to that pattern of impacts. One could therefore learn about the history of meteorites in the inner solar system by studying the pattern and coming up with a falsifible theory that explains it. Maybe the theory works. Maybe it doesn't and you need a better one. But at least it's an atempt to explain without evoking supernatural forces or magical "puff, they exist" explanations. Why is no "puff, they exist" explanation needed to exaplain a rainbow? We can predict the angular size of a rainbow based on the refraction properties of a water drop. You can predict it on paper and compare it to reality. That gives you an actual understanding of the phenomenon if your predicition agrees with reality. Just saying "God did it" doesn't give you any understanding. --Mackronking2 04:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

OWNED Aknot 16:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

AKnot, thanks for reminding me that I hadn't replied to Mackronking2.
Claiming that God did it is an explanation of the origin of the observation. It it not a tautology, because I'm not saying that it is because that's what it is, but because that's what God created it to be. (And in any case, being a tautology doesn't actually make it wrong.)
True, it cannot be tested, but then the same applies for much of origins science.
Creationists only quote "God did it" when God said that He did it; and that's really only for starting things off; not for "any observation in life". Understanding that God did it, however, does bring us closer to understanding reality, if that is indeed reality (which I believe it is, of course). I would agree with you about how the craters on the moon formed, but all you've done is offer an alternative explanation; it doesn't actually refute the idea that God made them that way.
Your comment that "at least it's an atempt to explain without evoking supernatural forces" gives it away: It's not that the "God did it" explanation is wrong. Rather, you want to explain things without God. That's not science, that's a worldview.
As for the rainbow, see my comment above about what God tells us He did.
Philip J. Rayment 01:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Philip, if your God theory is correct, then please use it explain to me how meteor crater can to exist in the Arizona desert. --Mackronking2 01:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
My point Philip is this. Why do you suggest that the existence (size, shape, composition, etc) of Meteor Crater (or the gazillions of craters on the Moon) have a natural explanation, but the existence of Lithium in stellar atmospheres have a supernatural explanation?--Mackronking2 01:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
And you big bang believers how do you believe the universe was created? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 01:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
"My" "God theory" says that God created the universe and everything (then) in it during those first six days, and that the "everything" includes things like the laws of physics. After that, with few exceptions, things have proceeded according to those laws of physics that God created. The meteor craters would not have been part of God's original creation, so would have been formed much as you would explain it, except for the bit about when it happened. Incidentally, describing a depression in the Arizona desert as a "meteor crater" includes an implied explanation what caused said depression. I agree with the explanation, but you need to learn to distinguish between the facts and the explanations of the facts. Philip J. Rayment 02:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Responding to your further post, even though my previous comments above were not in answer to that, they probably do go some way towards answering it. I wouldn't rule out Lithium having a natural explanation, if that were compatible with the overall supernatural beginning. Philip J. Rayment 02:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, I follow you. So how do you decide which observations have a natural explanation, and which have a supernatural explanation? After all, the Lithium abundance *can* be predicted using the laws of physics (that's part of the Big Bang theory). It seems to me that if a natural theory can indeed explain the observation, then maybe the supernatural intervention must have come even earlier in time. --Mackronking2 02:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
A prediction being fulfilled supplies support for a theory, but it doesn't prove it, particularly if more than one theory makes the same prediction. In a sense, creationists have two options to consider: Did something happen naturally, or did it happen supernaturally. Atheists, in contrast, cannot (whilst remaining atheists) consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation, thus ruling some explanations out before even being considered. Just as various theories have their supporters and detractors, and just as some evidence seems to support one theory over another but other evidence might support the the latter over the former, whether a natural or a supernatural explanation is the correct one is often a matter for research and debate. And even if a supernatural cause is agreed upon, there may still be debate about just how that was done. YECs agree, for example, that God was responsible for Noah's Flood, but did He do that by means of collapsing a vapour canopy, by hitting the oceans with a giant meteor, by setting off a catastrophic plate tectonics scenario, or what? (NB: I'm not suggesting that each of those examples is currently considered or equally popular among YECs.) In fact, everything is up for grabs, so to speak, except for where God has specifically said that He did something. He said that He created the universe in six days, so that rules out the Big Bang scenario, but it doesn't rule out Russell Humphreys' superficially-similar model, which for all I know might predict the Lithium levels the same as the Big Bang does. Philip J. Rayment 04:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, thanks for explaining your position. The problem I have with it is that just because the bible says the universe was created in six days, that doesn't mean that it was. That's just an appeal to authority ("It true because the Bible tells me it's true"). So I don't see how you can rule out the Big Bang theory just based on a sentence in a book, especially when the theory does a remarkably well job in explaining the Li/H abundance ratio, the relationship between galaxy velocities and distances, and the pattern of temperature anisotropities of the cosmic microwave background. Each of those observations are totally unrelated to each other and are described by very different physics, yet one theory (BB) can make predicitions for them all that numerically agree with reality. So if the BB theory is not true, then why does it give numerical predicitions that agree with reality?--Mackronking2 04:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
The "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy when the person being appealed to is not an authority. There's nothing wrong with appealing to an authority if the person being cited is an authority. And by definition, God is an authority on what happened at the beginning. So I'm not really saying "It true because the Bible tells me it's true"; rather, "It is true because the One who did it and observed it tells us that's what happened.".
The theory might do "remarkably well" at explaining some things, but overall it doesn't do that well, and I seem to recall that the anisotropies of the CMB is one that it doesn't do well, as the observed variations are not as great as predicted by the theory. In fact even many secular scientists reject or have doubts about the Big Bang. See here.
Philip J. Rayment 05:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the Big Bang theory predicts the anisotropy patterns essentially perfectly. I'm an astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from MIT by the way, so by your appeal to authority approach, you should believe me. But don't take my word for it -- compare the numerical predicitions of the theory to the data obtained with the COBE or WMAP satellites and see for yourself. As for the Bible being an authority, I dispute that claim because it conflicts with observations. Simple light travel time arguments rule out a young Universe. The Andromeda Galaxy is some 700 million light years away. Nowadays, any Joe with a telescope and digital camera can confirm that for himself in his own backyard. If we can see something 700 million light years away, then the light has taken 700 million years to reach us. It's a simple argument; v = d / t.--Mackronking2 06:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
An appeal to authority, when it really is an authority, is a valid thing to do, but it doesn't mean that the authority is necessarily correct (infallible ones such as God excepted, of course).
The Big Bang conflicts with observations also, which is why so many scientists reject it, but your point about the Bible disagreeing with observations ignores the creationist models that explain it, such as those of Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett.
Philip J. Rayment 07:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, so appeal to authority is fallible (unless, of course, it supports your argument -- then it's infallible). I think all appeal to authority is fallible, and the way you test it is to compare it to reality. If you're correct, then reality will support your assertion. As for Humphrey and Hartnett, the only way to get around the travel time argument to the Andromeda Galaxy is for them to either compute a grossly different velocity for the speed of light or to measure a grossly different distance to the galaxy. If you've seen evidence and numbers for either one, then please quote them here. Don't quote hand-waving or vague (ie, no math) arguments about c-decay or "white hole" cosmology. It's really a simple argument. v = d / t. To get a different t, you need a different v or a different d (or both). Just quote there numbers and show me how you get t < 6000 years. I'll even do the division for you.--Mackronking2 08:01, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
You are misrepresenting what I said. The Appeal to Authority is a legitimate way of supporting an argument, but if doesn't "prove" the argument, unless the authority itself if infallible. It has nothing to do with whether or not it supports my argument. But yes, you can test it by comparing it to reality—if you have reality to test it against. You do not have the Big Bang nor the six days of creation, so you cannot do those test. That's not to say that you can't make inferences based on what evidence is available, but it's no longer and clear black-and-white test.
You claim that you must change either v or d to get a different t, but you also indicate that you are aware of white hole cosmologies and the like which give a different measurement of t for a given v and d, according to where the observer is, which means you know that changing v or d are not the only possibilities.
Philip J. Rayment 09:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Again Philip, just provide the numbers for d and v, do the division, and see what you get. If you'd like to use a different equation other than v = d / t, then quote that and use it to get a t that is less than 6000 years. But please sho wme the math. This isn't hard math here. It's division. It's just like if you were driving at a constant 55 mph and you traveled 110 miles according to your odometer, then you've been traveling for 2 hours. There's no point arguing with words. If t is less than 6000 years, then the Bible agrees with reality. If t is greater than 6000 years, then the Bible does not agree with reality. It's hard to make this simpler. Pick a galaxy and do the simple math. Prove it to me once and for all.--Mackronking2 15:02, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so if I was driving at a constant 55 mph and travelled 110 miles, then from my point of view I've travelled for two hours. But how much time has passed for someone watching me from a vantage point where time passes at a different rate? What's the formula for that? Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure I understand you. All observers agree on the vaue of the speed of light; that's the fundamental tenant of special relativity and it is confirmed in particle accelerators around the workd every day. It doesn't matter where or how fast the observer is. The proper distance between two points in space is also the same for any observer, regardless of how fast or slow that observer is moving. The time that an observer will measure for a light ray to travel a given proper distance doesn't depend on who is observing; it's just the proper distance divided by the speed of light. --Mackronking2 17:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, I think I folow you statement now. Suppose observer A has the 'normal' flow of time, but observer B is in a region of space where time ticks twice as slow for him. So in 2 seconds of observer A's clock, observer's B clock has ticked only one second. What time does observer B measure for the car to travel 110 miles? Both observers will agree on the distance the car needs to travel (say the distance between two cones or something). Observer A measures 55 mph for the car, hence two hours. Observer B, however, will count 4 hours to travel that same distance. That is, in observer B'd frame, the car is only traveling 55/2 = 22.5 mph. So yes, they will get different results for both the elapsed time and for the car's speed. Now if this is true, then special relativity must be wrong. The tenenat that all of special relativity is based on is that all observers agree on the speed of light regardless of their reference frame. We would need observers to measure different values of the speed of light for your time rate hypothesis to be correct. Do you agree that for your hypothesis to be correct, then special relativity must not be perfectly correct? That's what it seems to me. --Mackronking2 17:35, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindenting)You do know that general relativity (I think it's that one) says (and this has been confirmed experimentally) that time is affected by gravity? Transmissions between Earth and satellites have to account for the fact that the clocks in the satellites are running at a different rate to clocks on Earth, due to the lower gravity where the clocks are. Time passing at different rates is a real phenomenon. Philip J. Rayment 23:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I agree. But it's only significant when you're near a very massive object. Out in empty space, which is where the light spends virtually all of its time in transit, the effect is so small that it can be neglected. We could probably estimate how small just from the 1/r^2 law of gravity.--Mackronking2 00:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

According to Humphreys' and Hartnett's models, the universe was very small to start off with, which meant that there was a very large mass, i.e. your "very massive object". That's the whole point of their models. Philip J. Rayment 03:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
How did the moon got THAT ammount of craters in only 6000 years?Aknot 15:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
By being hit with a sufficient number of meteors in that time? Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
BTW, Pillip, could you explain me the "Big Bang is coming" thing on your page?Aknot 15:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Have you read the verse mentioned in the user box? Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
No Aknot 19:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Then how about you have a read, and then come back and ask if you still don't understand? Philip J. Rayment 23:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
No, i have no time or patience, can you answer the question please? or it's gonne be even more far fetched than YEC?Aknot 17:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up." --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 17:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
That has nothing to do with BB, i think it's an allusion to the sun turning in a red giant; 5 billion years in the futureAknot 16:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
It has to do with God destroying "the heavens" when the Lord returns, and the description is reminiscent of an explosion, and as a Biblical creationist, that's the only "big bang" that I recognise. It's a warning of coming judgement, that you better be ready for. Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How do you who guys who believe in the big bang explain away the first law of thermodynamics? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So Philip you are really saying that you're hanging your entire beleif system on the infallibility of the transcribers of a single book? You're willing to admit the possiblity that after the "Six days of creation" that the universe unfolded based on the laws of physics with little or no supernatural intervention, but you absolutely positively reject the remotest possiblity that someone mistranslated something in Genesis, or that it is intended as allegory, and that perhaps God created the universe with the Big Bang, and set the Laws of Physics and Nature in place to allow the universe to unfold as we see it, and evolution to proceed as He intended? That is a very narrow view of God. QNA 07:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

There have been so many translators, and so many commentators who know the original languages, it is beyond belief that they have all got it so wrong. I mean, it's not as though I'm relying on a single person's translation of it, or even anything close to that.
Yes, I reject that everyone has mistranslated something in Genesis, partly because it would not be a single mistranslation, but a whole swag. It's not just a single reference to six days, but each day is counted off, the six days are mentioned in Exodus, and a couple of places in the New Testament make comments that are consistent with that. In other words, there are multiple lines of evidence in the Bible as to what the Bible is saying, not just a single questionable point.
Also, the experts are apparently unanimous that the the creation and flood accounts in Genesis are not allegory.
It is not a narrow view of God to take Him at His Word.
Philip J. Rayment 10:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

It is clearly false to claim "Also, the experts are apparently unanimous that the the creation and flood accounts in Genesis are not allegory." If that were true, then there would be no debate among scholars, which there is... unless your definition of expert is "Those who agree that Genesis is not allegorical.". As just an example... here's 10,000+ clergy who might disagree with you: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm --- But I'm sure none of them is an "expert". QNA 12:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

No, none of them are experts! :-). Seriously, I did leave myself open by not defining "experts", but I also did have good reason for claiming that, other than your typical-of-anti-creationists slur as to what my definition might be.
Being a minister of religion doesn't make you an "expert" on the Hebrew language, which is why I would discount your list. And here my justification for that claim (from James Barr, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University):
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know
Philip J. Rayment 00:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's one man's opinion claiming no others "as far as I know" disagree. Hardly an open and shut case. And dismissing over 10,000 clergy and others, including Pope John Paul as non-experts is at least as "typical" as my so-called "typical of anti-creationist slur"... QNA 07:31, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Is that the best response that you can make? I have quoted an expert, pointing out that the other experts all agree. He would be in a position to know. And clearly professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities would have a better idea than the average clergyman, and even the Pope. It's like me saying that all the mechanics reckon car x is the best car, and you respond by giving me a list of handymen who think otherwise. Philip J. Rayment 10:05, 19 May 2007 (EDT)


Well, first, your analogy is false... It's more like you saying here's a mechanic who claims all other mechanics agree with him... but putting that aside, as long as you are framing the debate by defining what an expert is, its a waste of my time to bother searching for someone who meets your criteria. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you will ignore the opinions of so many considering the amount of scientific evidence you ignore on a regular basis. QNA 18:25, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
True, that part or my analogy wasn't a good one, but what's wrong with me considering professors of Hebrew and Old Testament as more expert than ministers who have been trained to preach, etc., and would not be as knowledgeable on the these matters as those world-class professors. You simply dismiss this aspect without any argument, accusing me of trying to define who is an expert and who isn't, whilst doing the same thing yourself, and instead go for an ad hominem attack on me, for which you provide no evidence anyway. Philip J. Rayment 20:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Young earth creationist view

This section is worthless.

See my comments regarding it in Talk:Paleocene which apply equally here, as it is the same section which has just been cut and pasted onto every geological time period article. --Jeremiah4-22 15:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Young earth creationists believe that...

Young earth creationists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error and do not believe in the Jurassic period.

I would like to suggest removing "evolutionary" from the sentence. As mentioned above the age of the earth being very old was put forward before evolution came on the scientific scene. The geological time scale does not imply evolution. It is possible to read about the Geologic Time Scale without seeing the word evolution except in citations (of the two citations that have 'evolution' in the title, only one is about biology). --Mtur 15:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Secular Dating IS a Fact, Philip

Until you solve the starlight problem, secular dating is a fact. Get back to me with that. Until then, I have reverted your undo of my changes.-AmesGyo! 11:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. Secular dating is not a fact.
  2. Starlight has nothing to do with this article.
  3. The burden of proof is not on creationism in this case as the creationist view is not being claimed as fact, unlike the secular view in your changes.
  4. Revert it again and I will block you (and you will be the first block I've done to someone who is not a vandal).
See also my comments above about my opinion on this article.
Philip J. Rayment 11:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Starlight has a lot to do with the issue; it proves the old age of the universe, and thus disproves the entire young earth creationist dating schema. If you choose to ignore this falsifying evidence, you prove once & for all that your views are un-scientific. As a rule, remember, in science the burden of proof is on the new theory, and certainly on the theory making the most outrageous claims. YEC-"theory" is both; thus the burden is on you. Your threat is noted: per your warning I did not undo any changes, but added a sentence & citation.-AmesGyo! 11:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Starlight has as much to do with the Jurassic as the entire creation/evolution/uniformitarian argument has to do with it. Yes, it is not totally unrelated, but it is not something specific to this article. I am only ignoring the starlight issue as far as this article is concerned. I do not ignore is otherwise, but I disagree that it is falsifying evidence. If the burden of proof is on the "new" theory, then the burden of proof should have been on the old-Earth theory when James Hutton simply pronounced that uniformitarianism was the way to go. Personally, I think that it is the uniformitarians who are making the outrageous claims, so that comment doesn't carry much weight either. I don't fully agree with your edit, but certainly it was not what I warned you against.
By the way, my previous post here was written in a hurry. I should have explained that blocking you for would have been for edit warring or for disobeying a direction of an administrator, not for posting an ideological view.
You haven't commented on my alternative version of this article (see further up this page). I still hope to have my version reinstated, and now have an additional argument to do so (not anything discussed here).
Philip J. Rayment 21:20, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Your version is so much better! Wow. Why don't you put it back up? I'll support you for what it's worth. It's a fair treatment of the issue, giving the "equal time" that CP demands. I'll discuss the starlight claim later, but I hope you put it back.-AmesGyo! 21:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil, I'm tired of fighting Conservative on this. You should revert to your version.-AmesGyo! 21:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Could we get this article to actually say something?

There is far too much pointless quibbling going on, about the phrasing within the sections which we do not agree with ("It is claimed", "According to", "supposedly", etc), which is getting us nowhere with this (and similar articles),

It would surely be more constructive to write the individual sections of the article, as clear and uninterrupted statements of the believed facts according to that viewpoint, and clearly titling the sections "Young Earth Creationist viewpoint", "Scientific viewpoint" (and any other viewpoints that people may wish to put forward). --Jeremiah4-22 12:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Reinstatement 28th April 2007

Just for the sake of properly documenting matters, my reinstatement of my earlier version of this article follows extensive discussion on my talk page, here. — Philip J. Rayment 09:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Merge?

I think we should merge all of the secular time periods into one article, they all give alot of the same info and it would make more sense to have them in one article. Secular geological timescale maybe? --CPAdmin1 22:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

That would make for a very large article and Conservapedia has a goal of keeping the articles smaller. I think it will be okay with separate articles.
It already links to Geologic system, which was intended to be a neutral name for what you are calling Secular geological timescale. Have you looked at Geologic system?
There should be a table showing the geologic system components such as Jurassic, even with the secular dates, but I was wondering if that should be in its own article (i.e just the table and an introduction) to avoid making Geologic system too large. Philip J. Rayment 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Does one need to put 'secular' in front of each word that doesn't match the YEC interpretation? Could we get Secular theory of evolution? Putting secular in front of it makes it harder to find and adds nothing of value to it. One would assume that geologic timescale would be just as reasonable of a name. --Mtur 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

As I've just said above, in this case I don't see the need, but otherwise, yes, one does often need to put "secular" (or some equivalent), because not all geology (etc.) is done from a secular point of view. But in saying that, I'm referring to the text of articles; hopefully with article titles we can avoid that with neutral terms, such as I did with Geologic system. Philip J. Rayment 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I think that that 1 article would not be too long, and it would eliminate the need for
"The Jurassic is preceded by Permian era and followed by the Cretaceous era."
And the like. --CPAdmin1 23:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Each geological time period article, if it is to give an informative account of the scientific positions, will need to be substantially larger than the current article. As well as the beginning/end times, the preceding/following periods, where the name came from etc, each will need to have sections (each probably several paragraphs long) on the positions and movement of major landmasses during the period; the climate during the period, the dominant faunistic and floral groups, giving several specific examples; the main regions in which strata of the period are found, and the means by which they are recognised; plus discussion of the events responsible for starting and ending the period. And probably some other things too.
Many of these things will need to be explicitly compared to those of preceding/following periods as well.
Quite probably the creationist positions will need to be grown correspondingly to address each point raised too. There are about a dozen periods to deal with too, so I can't see any way that this can all be fitted into a single sensibly-sized article. --Jeremiah4-22 11:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools