RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT so wrong?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/25/2008 10:24:16 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't really take radiometric dating very seriously. I explain why this is so here.
quote:
It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages. Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others.
NCSE
quote:
If radiometric dating were accurate, determinants of age would not need to be evaluated using other geologic information. They would be able to date the rocks independently of other geologic information and the dates should independently be consistent with other geologic information. The reason they must use other geologic information is because sometimes the dates they receive are not consistent with what they perceive they should be based on other geologic information so they assume a particular rock gave an incorrect date (due to contamination or whatever) and they date other rocks until they find some rock that yields a date consistent with their presumed date (based on other geological information).
From my link
So basically, it seems that people dating stuff rely on other geological factors more than they rely on radiometric dating because they know that radiometric dating is not that reliable. They then later try to correlate the radiometric dates with other geological factors. If radiometric dating were very reliable they would be able to rely on it at least as much as other geological factors (but they rely on other geological factors first).
While it is true that radiometric dating doesn't seem to be reliable, I will admit that there is evidence that is difficult to explain from a young earth perspective. Bede used to point out that that the delta O18 patterns in ice cores seem to line up with the milankovitch cycles and those patterns can be traced back for several hundred thousand years.
I would also go as far as to say that there is evidence to suggest that the earth was created quickly ( www.halos.com ), though even if the Earth were created quickly, that's not to say that the Earth is young (though I'm not saying it's old either). More recently, someone came up with a model that might explain this (it was mentioned on one of those youtube physics lectures by Berkley) but I forgot exactly how it went (but in this model, everything was created very quickly and the notion that everything was created very quickly, I would say, seems to fit the evidence much better than other models). The model mentioned also seems to explain why there is so little antimatter in the universe (though I can't seem to find it now) in comparison to matter (it said something like, in the beginning there was a bunch of matter and antimatter and most of the matter hit antimatter but some matter remained and we are what remained. I forgot exactly how the model went and, like other models, most of it is speculative, but I would say that this one is better than most other models).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/26/2008 8:20:59 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 8:29:10 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I think I found the model
quote:
The 1963 discovery of CP-violation at the microscopic particle level offered a possible explanation of why the universe was not annihilated soon after its birth. The amounts of matter and antimatter created by the Big Bang must have been nearly equal, but not precisely so. For every billion particles of antimatter created in the genesis explosion, the experiment by Dr. Cronin and Dr. Fitch demonstrated, there could have been a billion and one particles of matter. One surviving atom of matter for every billion particles annihilated was enough to create the universe.
Scientist at Work: Dr. James W. Cronin; Looking for a Few Good Particles From Outer Space
Basically, in this model, the big bang allegedly created slightly more matter than antimatter (and the possibility of having slightly disproportional matter to antimatter has been demonstrated) and most of the matter did collide into antimatter but some matter remained, and we are that matter. While I don't subscribe to this hypothesis (it's mostly just speculation, beyond the scope of science), I think that it explains why we have more matter than antimatter and I think it also does a better job of explaining why the matter in the universe seems to appear as though it were created very quickly (though traditional big bang theorists try to theorize that it took a very long time to form despite the fact that the evidence doesn't seem to fit, ie: www.halos.com ). Before I saw this hypothesis, I thought that most of the big bang models were completely ridiculous (actually, I still think that) and did not fit the evidence whatsoever. Finally, I saw something that kinda seems to fit the evidence better than most previous models (though it's still speculative and non science and it still needs a LOT of work and has many problems) in that it explains why we have more matter than antimatter and it seems to better explain why matter looks as though it formed quickly (despite traditional big bang theorists insisting otherwise). It still has all kinds of problems and needs work (I don't buy it, it still sounds like ridiculous speculation, my point is that it seems to be a slight improvement over previous models).
Models about the formation of the moon are even more laughable.
quote:
Many scientists have thought for years that the moon was formed during the early days of the solar system when another planet collided with Earth, ejecting fragments of rocky material that condensed into Earth's only satellite.
Was Moon Born From Planet's Crash Into Earth?
It's amazing how silly speculation tries to pass off as science.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/26/2008 8:52:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 12:18:03 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I don't really take radiometric dating very seriously. I explain why this is so here.
quote:
It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages. Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others.
Radiometric dating is unreliable because scientists are very careful to eliminate possible problems and check their work. I see.
quote:
If radiometric dating were accurate, determinants of age would not need to be evaluated using other geologic information.
This is not true. If a zircon is found in a sedimentary rock, it is certain it did not form there. Thus, the rock is younger than the zircons within it. Understanding the geology allows one to better interpret the radiometric date. This also demonstrates the utility of measuring more than one sample from a given area - the rock is younger than the youngest zircon.
quote:
I would also go as far as to say that there is evidence to suggest that the earth was created quickly ( www.halos.com )
I don't really take radiohaloes very seriously. Or rather, I think there is a better explanation involving long-halflife isotopes, which provides dating estimates that are consistent with all the other radiometric methods.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 12:27:03 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I think it also does a better job of explaining why the matter in the universe seems to appear as though it were created very quickly (though traditional big bang theorists try to theorize that it took a very long time to form despite the fact that the evidence doesn't seem to fit, ie: www.halos.com ).
Nothing in CP-violation requires that the universe is 'young'. Quite the opposite, insofar as it is part of the input into standard cosmological models.
Radiohaloes have nothing to do with CP-violation.
quote:
Finally, I saw something that kinda seems to fit the evidence better than most previous models (though it's still speculative and non science and it still needs a LOT of work and has many problems)
CP-violation is an established experimental fact. It is not speculative, or non science. The worst that can be said is that there is some question about whether the observed amount of violation is sufficient to produce as much matter as we see. But of course, our experiments have not really probed conditions as they were in the very very early universe.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 12:36:58 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong.
The only way science could be this wrong is if the scientific method is completely broken. If the scientific method was this broken it would impact all fields of science, not just those that conflict with the OT.
What fields of science that don't conflict with the OT that are as spectacularly wrong as those that do? If there are none, why is that?
Or is there some other explanation as to why the fields of science that conflict with the OT are so broken and other fields are not?
Man this is so off it's hard to believe someone would actually post it.
Sun revolves around earth? Where did you read that in the OT?
Flat earth? Where again?
The only way someone could be this wrong about the OT is if he knows nothing at all about it.
Seriously these kinds of statements reveal a glaring ignorance.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 1:38:32 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong.
The only way science could be this wrong is if the scientific method is completely broken. If the scientific method was this broken it would impact all fields of science, not just those that conflict with the OT.
What fields of science that don't conflict with the OT that are as spectacularly wrong as those that do? If there are none, why is that?
Or is there some other explanation as to why the fields of science that conflict with the OT are so broken and other fields are not?
Man this is so off it's hard to believe someone would actually post it.
Sun revolves around earth? Where did you read that in the OT?
Flat earth? Where again?
The only way someone could be this wrong about the OT is if he knows nothing at all about it.
Seriously these kinds of statements reveal a glaring ignorance.
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong.
Does this paragraph imply the OT says the Sun revolves around the earth or the earth is flat?
Seriously these kinds of statements reveal a glaring inability to comprehend written English.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 2:00:02 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4913
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
Can someone explain to me what God walking in the garden has to with topic?
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 3:45:08 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Radiometric dating is unreliable because scientists are very careful to eliminate possible problems and check their work. I see.
It's unreliable because it doesn't give reliable dates.
quote:
This is not true. If a zircon is found in a sedimentary rock, it is certain it did not form there.
It is speculated/assumed that it did not come from there.
quote:
Thus, the rock is younger than the zircons within it.
Again, more speculative assumptions.
quote:
Understanding the geology allows one to better interpret the radiometric date.
If radiometric dating were accurate, one would be able to correctly interpret the dates without using other geological factors. There would be no need to look at other geological factors before dating an object and then trying to come up with a date that is consistent with a presupposed date.
quote:
This also demonstrates the utility of measuring more than one sample from a given area -
You mean, measuring a bunch of rocks until one arrives at the pre - assumed date and discrediting the rocks that arrive at dates inconsistent with those presupposed dates.
quote:
the rock is younger than the youngest zircon.
More speculative assumptions.
quote:
I don't really take radiohaloes very seriously. Or rather, I think there is a better explanation involving long-halflife isotopes, which provides dating estimates that are consistent with all the other radiometric methods.
Gentry refutes all that on his website (I've gone into detail on these forums before a long time ago). All of the other explanations have shortcomings and are speculative at best (and can't be demonstrated in a lab). Anyone is free to go to his website and see.
Go to www.halos.com and look under replies to objections.
quote:
Nothing in CP-violation requires that the universe is 'young'.
I never said that it does.
quote:
Quite the opposite, insofar as it is part of the input into standard cosmological models.
You are basically admitting that the secular community is only willing to interpret the evidence within an old universe perspective (that they make the unscientific assumption that the universe is old). Just because the secular community assumes an old earth in their models does not mean the earth is old.
quote:
Radiohaloes have nothing to do with CP-violation.
The model in question attempts to use CP violation to explain certain aspects of the formation of the universe and everything in it and it would make sense that the model should also include the formation of Radiohalos. If the model can't account for the formation of radiohalos then the model as it stands is incorrect.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/26/2008 4:08:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 4:14:55 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
Can someone explain to me what God walking in the garden has to with topic?
I think I'm actually the one who nudged this thread off course when I responded to a supporting, but off topic comment.
I'd like to note, though that there is always going to be Scientific theories and "discoveries" that turn out to be wrong. Things that have nothing to do with the Old Testament are wrong despite the fact that they are vehemently protected by the scientific elite. A case in point was discussed today in a Chemistry class. Chemistry was chugging along with the thoroughly supported theory that a substance was acidic if it had oxygen, then some loon named Arrhenius came along in 1894 and proposed that only ionized hydrogen donors were acids... THE NERVE! Since 1776 it's been KNOWN that oxygen is what makes a substance acidic, and he's gonna come along now 120 years later and try to rock the boat?! Well the scientific elite kept the thing under wraps for a good 10 years or so, even denying Arrhenius his much deserved degree. But it was eventually discovered that he was right and Arrhenius got a Nobel Prize for his work in Chemistry.
Arrhenius didn't hate science. So far as we can tell he sought the truth before his own degree, and he payed the price for it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 5:07:46 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
This is not true. If a zircon is found in a sedimentary rock, it is certain it did not form there.
It is speculated/assumed that it did not come from there.
Assuming the sedimentary rock formed by sedimentation, then it's pretty obvious. Of course, it could have been miraculously created with the appearance of having been made via sedimentation.
quote:
Gentry refutes all that on his website
He has plenty of words, but nothing I would deem a refutation. If his arguments about radiohaloes held water, his theories would be gaining recognition. As it is, the scientific establishment published his ideas, evaluated them, and discarded them 20 years ago.
quote:
You are basically admitting that the secular community is only willing to interpret the evidence within an old universe perspective (that they make the unscientific assumption that the universe is old).
No. The old age of the universe is a scientific result that was not assumed. It is a consequence of the observed universal expansion and the equations of general relativity. These models imply an old universe, they do not assume one.
quote:
The model in question attempts to use CP violation to explain certain aspects of the formation of the universe and everything in it and it would make sense that the model should also include the formation of Radiohalos. If the model can't account for the formation of radiohalos then the model as it stands is incorrect.
That's just ridiculous. It's like saying that because a weather model can't account for mountain formation, then the weather model is incorrect.
The era of baryogenesis, due at least in part to CP-violation, in which matter came to predominate was very early in the universe. The energy density was such that there were no stars or planets at that time. Once the universe cooled enough for planets and rocks to form, CP-violation was so rare as to be meaningless on the scale of rocks and radiohaloes.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 5:16:36 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
He has plenty of words, but nothing I would deem a refutation. If his arguments about radiohaloes held water, his theories would be gaining recognition. As it is, the scientific establishment published his ideas, evaluated them, and discarded them 20 years ago.
Just because the secular community proclaims that his arguments are wrong doesn't make it so. In fact, the NSF only stopped funding him after they discovered his research may support a young earth, something they didn't seem to like. This demonstrates a dishonest discrimination against anyone that contradicts the unscientific assumption of an old universe. Besides, you are not the ultimate authority over what constitutes a refutation. Yes, you may not deem something a refutation (and part of that maybe due to your metaphysical biases), but that doesn't mean it's not a refutation. I encourage everyone interested to visit the site and judge for themselves (instead of assuming that the refutations aren't valid just because essentialsaltes deems them not to be, as if he's the ultimate authority over what constitutes a refutation and if he deems something not to be a refutation, it must not be one. It's funny how you try to advance science by method of stating your opinion (ie: not "deeming" something to be a refutation, as if your opinion should be accepted without further research. On the other hand, I try to advance science by encouraging people to research both sides before drawing conclusions because I think that's how science should be advanced. Science doesn't advance by method of proclamation, just because you or anyone else "deems" something not to be a refutation doesn't make it so and just because the secular community proclaims Gentry to be wrong doesn't make him wrong)).
quote:
No. The old age of the universe is a scientific result that was not assumed. It is a consequence of the observed universal expansion and the equations of general relativity. These models imply an old universe, they do not assume one.
Humphry and Gentry came up with models that "imply" a young universe. It's not necessarily that the models "imply" a young universe, it's just that the models "assume" a young universe. The same thing is true with secular models. They assume an old universe, but the question is, what does the evidence itself imply.
quote:
That's just ridiculous. It's like saying that because a weather model can't account for mountain formation, then the weather model is incorrect.
The weather model is not attempting to account for mountain formation but the model mentioned attempts to account for the origins of the universe and everything in it.
quote:
The era of baryogenesis, due at least in part to CP-violation, in which matter came to predominate was very early in the universe. The energy density was such that there were no stars or planets at that time. Once the universe cooled enough for planets and rocks to form, CP-violation was so rare as to be meaningless on the scale of rocks and radiohaloes.
Speculation.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/26/2008 5:28:38 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 5:40:22 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Assuming the sedimentary rock formed by sedimentation, then it's pretty obvious. Of course, it could have been miraculously created with the appearance of having been made via sedimentation.
First of all, labeling it sedimentary rock is a speculative label.
Secondly, you still seem to be missing the point. The point here is that other geological factors are first used to speculate about how old the rock should be (in relation to other rocks and based on OET assumptions) and then radiometric dating is used to find a date that fits the presupposed date (or range). If radiometric dating were accurate, one would be able to accurately date such rocks without using other geological information and then that date should later independently correspond to other geological information. In other words, the people who are dating the rock already have assumptions as to how old the rock should be and if the date doesn't correlate, they deem the rock contaminated and then they find another rock to date until they get a rock that comes up with a desired date (or that falls within a desired range). Radiometric dating is not accurate. As the NCSE article points out, often times they have to keep repeating the experiment over and over (because of the fact that they can't get consistent answers) and it seems that they arbitrarily disregard dates that don't correlate with other geological samples and their presuppositions (ie: they call it a lab error or they deem the rock contaminated, etc...). The fact that they don't get consistent results (which is why cross checks are required, and if those are inconsistent, more rocks must be sampled) helps demonstrate the unreliable nature of radiometric dating (there would be no need to keep checking, re - checking, and re - verifying the results over and over if they were accurate. If radiometric dating were reliable, it should give consistent and accurate results from the beginning and every re - verification thereafter should reliably correlate with the first check such that scientists know that re - evaluations and re - checks are unnecessary. I can scientifically predict where the moon will be tomorrow at any given time, look there, and it would be there. That's science. There is none of this, it might be there and it might not and if I see it there I have to keep re - checking to make sure it's really there but Newton's model is correct regardless. I know, based on Newton's model, where the moon will be tomorrow at a given time and I don't have to check, re - check, and re - verify it 100 times. I know the model is correct so I know that all these re - checks are unnecessary. If a model predicts that the earth should rotate in 24 hours and we only observe it to do so intermittently, then the model is wrong. If any other scientific model (ie: earth rotating in 24 hours) were only correct intermittently, and not consistently, it would be disregarded, so why does radiometric dating get so much less scrutiny).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/26/2008 6:02:46 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 8:25:39 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
It's funny how you try to advance science by method of stating your opinion (ie: not "deeming" something to be a refutation, as if your opinion should be accepted without further research.
I'm not attempting to advance science on this point. Science has already advanced past Gentry's ideas.
quote:
On the other hand, I try to advance science by encouraging people to research both sides before drawing conclusions, because I think that's how science should be advanced.
Competent scientists already did that 20 years ago. Science did advance, and it left Gentry's ideas in the scrap-pile of history. You are not trying to advance science, but to force it backward to waste time recovering old ground.
quote:
The same thing is true with secular models. They assume an old universe
This is untrue. The age of the universe is a calculated result, not assumed and placed into the equation by hand.
quote:
The weather model is not attempting to account for mountain formation but the model mentioned attempts to account for the origins of the universe and everything in it.
The Big Bang Theory is not attempting to account for the existence of mountains, or rocks, or radiohaloes. The standard model of cosmology does account for why there was more matter than antimatter, and thus why there is matter now. But it doesn't account for the shape of North America or other small-scale (!) distributions of matter.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/26/2008 8:32:39 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I'm not attempting to advance science on this point. Science has already advanced past Gentry's ideas.
...
Competent scientists already did that 20 years ago. Science did advance, and it left Gentry's ideas in the scrap-pile of history. You are not trying to advance science, but to force it backward to waste time recovering old ground.
...
This is untrue. The age of the universe is a calculated result, not assumed and placed into the equation by hand.
Again, science doesn't advance by method of proclamation and essentialsaltes (and the secular community) continues to think it does. I encourage everyone to look at both sides of the argument for themselves (ie: and visit www.halos.com and the website that essentialsaltes gave). A careful observation of the evidence and arguments on all sides is how science advances, the secular community (or essentialsaltes) simply disregarding something because they disagree with it is not. The fact that essentialsaltes resorts to proclamations to advance his ideas (instead of encouraging others to look at both sides of the issue) seems to indicate just how unscientific his ideas are. Neither essentialsaltes nor the secular community that disregards Gentry are the ultimate authority over science.
quote:
The Big Bang Theory is not attempting to account for the existence of mountains, or rocks, or radiohaloes. The standard model of cosmology does account for why there was more matter than antimatter, and thus why there is matter now. But it doesn't account for the shape of North America or other small-scale (!) distributions of matter.
The big bang itself allegedly accounts for everything that exists now and if it does account for it, then it must be able to (it can't account for something it's unable to account for).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/27/2008 10:02:18 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
You're only human.