nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Where does Wikipedia get it's sources on the Earth's age and related date estimates: Reply to PDinsdale
::::::::: I don't agree that "As one goes backwards in time and approaches the origin of the universe, energies, decay rates, and physical laws inevitably were different". I see no reason to suppose that physical laws were ever different, and I think nobody proposes that they were, except for some scientists who propose that they were different in the first few microseconds after the supposed Big Bang. That is, apart from that proposal (with which I disagree), everyone believes that physical laws have remained constant, rather than changing over time. Second, although some creationary scientists have concluded that decay rates have varied in the past (i.e. the RATE team), even they don't propose that they have changed in some sort of way related to the age of the universe, as your comment seems to be saying. However, to agree with you, yes scientists do propose a change in the physical laws (as mentioned) when it suits them, but deny it otherwise. Further, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, I see no reason to suppose that a claim about variations in decay rates means a change in physical laws, as opposed to an incomplete understanding of those physical laws. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: I don't agree that "As one goes backwards in time and approaches the origin of the universe, energies, decay rates, and physical laws inevitably were different". I see no reason to suppose that physical laws were ever different, and I think nobody proposes that they were, except for some scientists who propose that they were different in the first few microseconds after the supposed Big Bang. That is, apart from that proposal (with which I disagree), everyone believes that physical laws have remained constant, rather than changing over time. Second, although some creationary scientists have concluded that decay rates have varied in the past (i.e. the RATE team), even they don't propose that they have changed in some sort of way related to the age of the universe, as your comment seems to be saying. However, to agree with you, yes scientists do propose a change in the physical laws (as mentioned) when it suits them, but deny it otherwise. Further, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, I see no reason to suppose that a claim about variations in decay rates means a change in physical laws, as opposed to an incomplete understanding of those physical laws. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: Given that all agree that the laws of physics were different as one gets close in time to the origin universe, it is a logical absurdity to then pretend the laws have always been the same and draw conclusions based on that implausible assumption. Those who insist on doing that are simply assuming what they are trying to prove. They're chasing their own tail.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:47, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: Given that all agree that the laws of physics were different as one gets close in time to the origin universe, it is a logical absurdity to then pretend the laws have always been the same and draw conclusions based on that implausible assumption. Those who insist on doing that are simply assuming what they are trying to prove. They're chasing their own tail.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:47, 27 April 2008 (EDT)</div>
::::::::::: But the point is that ''not all'' agree that the laws of physics were different as one get close in time to the origin of the universe. The only people who do think that, as far as I know, are Big Bang cosmologists (and anyone who accepts what those scientists say) who accept it for the first few microseconds after the Big Bang. God created the laws of physics as part of His creation, and being a consistent God, does not change them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
<div style="background:#eee">
I don't know, everyone here arguing about the validity of radiometric dating and nobody actually points out to Urban67 that our [[Earth]] article ''doesn't'' "state for a fact that the Earth is billions of years old"! Unlike the biased Wikipedia, our article covers both uniformitarian and creationary views.
I don't know, everyone here arguing about the validity of radiometric dating and nobody actually points out to Urban67 that our [[Earth]] article ''doesn't'' "state for a fact that the Earth is billions of years old"! Unlike the biased Wikipedia, our article covers both uniformitarian and creationary views.
If the amount of C14 was so hugely greater prior to the Flood, that would mean that during that brief period of time between Creation and the Flood (a thousand years? Two thousand?) that all plants would be fixing that huge amount as part of photosynthesis, and accordingly that animals would imbibe it as well. So what we would have would be a pretty interesting trend whenever we dated anything... if it was older than the Flood, it would contain a consistently huge level of C14 that varied only slightly, and if it was younger it would contain a much smaller. In other words, the graph would look like a single stair, rather than a sloping trend downwards. Any single event that changed the atmosphere is reflected in all evidence of that atmosphere. The evidence absolutely contradicts your theory.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
If the amount of C14 was so hugely greater prior to the Flood, that would mean that during that brief period of time between Creation and the Flood (a thousand years? Two thousand?) that all plants would be fixing that huge amount as part of photosynthesis, and accordingly that animals would imbibe it as well. So what we would have would be a pretty interesting trend whenever we dated anything... if it was older than the Flood, it would contain a consistently huge level of C14 that varied only slightly, and if it was younger it would contain a much smaller. In other words, the graph would look like a single stair, rather than a sloping trend downwards. Any single event that changed the atmosphere is reflected in all evidence of that atmosphere. The evidence absolutely contradicts your theory.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
</div>
</div>
:Replying to PDinsdale:
:"''...when I read the starlight problem article, I was struck with the same impression - that of people who don't want to accept the generally-accepted evidence that contradicts the YEC view, and propose one theory after another that not only seem unlikely, but in some cases are impossible to prove one way or another...''": Why do their ideas "seem unlikely"? I'd suggest that it's only because it's not the ruling paradigm. To me, it seems extremely unlikely that nothing would become something for no reason (i.e. the Big Bang), but it probably doesn't ''seem'' unlikely to you simply because that's the idea that you are use to and have come to accept. And much of the Big Bang hypothesis is impossible to prove one way or another also. And the YEC views also "follow consistent mathematical principles". In fact, Russell Humphreys said of his idea that it was based on exactly the same science as the Big Bang, but simply had a different starting assumption. Where the Big Bang ''assumes'' an unbounded universe, Humphrey's assumed a bounded universe. His cosmology then simply "fell out" of the science following that assumption. It also seems unlikely that up to 99% (I think the figure is) of the universe cannot be seen. That is, in order for the Big Bang model to work, cosmologists have to propose that up to 99% of the universe comprises 'dark matter', and some 'dark energy': matter and energy that we are unable to detect. In other words, an enormous (universe-sized!) fudge factor! Apply Occam's Razor to that!
:"''...to prove one way or another because they rely on assumed supernatural intervention (like God stretching spacetime after creation).''": Is that any worse that relying on unseen matter and energy? Once you allow for God being involved, then you must allow for Him "intervening". YECs are not in the habit, however, of invoking God simply to answer unanswerable conundrums. They only invoke Him where it can be justified, such as (as in this case) when the Bible explicitly says that He did something.
:"''When you apply Occam's Razor, it's easier to accept that light and gravity have always behaved the way they're consistently measured to do..''": Yeah? Humphreys' and Hartnett's cosmologies have light and gravity behaving the way that they are consistently measured to do. The Big Bang, by contrast, has fudges to make it work, such as proposing that the laws of physics were different for the first few microseconds and that light travelled faster than is measured to solve the [[horizon problem]].
:"''...than to assume that God changed the rules at some point...''": Well, that's kind of the point: YEC ideas have God ''not'' changing the rules, unlike the Big Bang scenario.
:"''...so the measurements we make today can still conform to a YEC timeframe''": That's putting things back to front. If God ''did'' create the universe the way that the Bible says and YECs propose, then God didn't change the rules so that measurements conform to a YEC timeframe. Rather, the measurements conform to a YEC timeframe ''because that's the way things happened''! You are, in effect, assuming the YEC view is wrong then trying to rationalise why the measurements made on that basis conform to that view that you've rejected!
: "''Finally, I have a problem with the view expressed by some here that science is unreliable when applied to historical problems, like ancient dating, because no one was there to correlate the results. That's dismissive of many elements of physics and chemistry that we accept and live by in other aspects of daily life ...''": Not at all. Dating methods involve ''measurements'' '''and''' ''assumptions''. It is the ''assumptions'' that are being questioned, not the measurements. If you'd read and understood [[radiometric dating]], you would know this, and not be claiming that questioning the dates means questioning the ''measurements''.
: "''..if I had to rely on a young-earth or old-earth viewpoint backed by science that I can measure and test today, or the historic writings of men I never knew, I'd choose the findings of science.''": If I had to rely on the untestable declarations about the past made by scientists who weren't there verses the infallible Word of the God who was there, I'd choose what God says. Your comparison with history written by fallible men is an invalid comparison.
: "''...the changing nature of the Christian Bible as it was revised and translated...''": What changing nature?
: "''I've never understood why one can't accept an old-earth view AND the wisdom in the Bible at the same time. The science in the Bible doesn't have to be accurate for the lessons in values to be.''": Because if it gets the factual history wrong, why trust it on the wisdom? "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" {{Bible ref|John|5:46-47|NIV}} "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" {{Bible ref|John|3|12|NIV}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 28 April 2008 (EDT)