Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#21 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 13 May 2009 - 05:52 PM

The universe is assumed to be older based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant.

#22 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 May 2009 - 09:52 PM

The universe is assumed to be older based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant.

View Post


That's not an assumption. It can be reliably shown that the speed of light is and has been constant for longer than the YEC belief that the universe is only 6000 years old.

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 May 2009 - 10:24 PM

That's not an assumption.  It can be reliably shown that the speed of light is and has been constant for longer than the YEC belief that the universe is only 6000 years old.

View Post

...and how would you demonstrate this without assumptions?

#24 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 May 2009 - 10:46 PM

...and how would you demonstrate this without assumptions?

View Post


One cast iron piece of evidence I can think of are the Cobalt 56 decay rates measured from the SN1987a supernova. Which gives the young Earth advocate 168,000 years to account for. How do you counter this without assumptions?

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 May 2009 - 10:50 PM

One cast iron piece of evidence I can think of are the Cobalt 56 decay rates measured from the SN1987a supernova.

View Post

Since many are not familiar, including myself, please tell us what is observed in the Cobalt 56 decay rates measured from the SN1987a supernova, and what are the methods used to draw conclusions?

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 May 2009 - 11:00 PM

How flimsy and limited do you suppose the evidence is for detecting and calibrating decay rates in a distant nova?

#27 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 May 2009 - 11:13 PM

One cast iron piece of evidence I can think of are the Cobalt 56 decay rates measured from the SN1987a supernova. Which gives the young Earth advocate 168,000 years to account for. How do you counter this without assumptions?

View Post


That's what they are doing. Even scientists admit that they are assuming the amount of Colbalt 56.It can't be observed directly because it's too far away.

Your assumptions don't trump all of the observed and empirical methods listed in this thread.


Thanks.

#28 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 May 2009 - 01:02 AM

Since many are not familiar, including myself, please tell us what is observed in the Cobalt 56 decay rates measured from the SN1987a supernova, and what are the methods used to draw conclusions?

View Post


The decay rate of the Cobalt 56 that was observed as exactly the same as is measured on Earth.

#29 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 May 2009 - 01:04 AM

Thats what they are doing,even scientists admit that they are assuming the amount of Colbalt 56.It can't be observed directly because it's too far away.

Your assumptions don't trump all of the observed and emperical methods listed in this thread.
Thanks.

View Post


How does the amount of a radioactive substance affect its decay rate?

#30 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 May 2009 - 01:10 AM

How flimsy and limited do you suppose the evidence is for detecting and calibrating decay rates in a distant nova?

View Post


Spectroscopy is a very precise science.

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 May 2009 - 03:47 AM

Since many are not familiar, including myself, please tell us what is observed in the Cobalt 56 decay rates measured from the SN1987a supernova, and what are the methods used to draw conclusions?

View Post


The light curve of the supernova is not typical for a Type II supernova. Instead of coming quickly to a peak and then decaying, the star first dropped in brightness and then leisurely took nearly three months to reach maximum. Toward the end of March, 1987 (a month after the explosion), all of the energy deposited by the shock had already been used to propel ejecta or escaped as radiation. Yet the supernova was still brightening at visible wavelengths until it peaked on May 20, 1987, 80 days after the explosion, to magnitude 2.9. Observations indicate that by April, another source of energy was providing most of the light: the decay of radioactive isotopes produced in the explosion. An especially important nucleus that formed deep inside the star, just outside the collapsing core, is nickel-56. The theory is that nickel-56 decays into cobalt-56 with a seven-day half-life, then the cobalt nuclei decay into iron-56 with a 111-day half-life, which is stable. So instead of fading from view in a few months, SN 1987A was steadily energized by the decay of fresh radioactive nickel. The light curve tracked the cobalt-56 radioactive decay rate, as one would expect from a system with that as its energy source.


Posted Image
Light Curve of SN 1987A from the
AAVSO International Database

www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0301.shtml - 37k -

1)Their assuming zero cobalt-56 to start with.

2)Their assuming a constant decay rate.

3)They have no other coroborating evidence that they are accurately measuring the amount thats present.

4)They have no way to test decay rates during an event that generates billions of times more heat and energy than a hydrogen bomb.

#32 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 May 2009 - 05:29 AM

Posted Image
Light Curve of SN 1987A from the
AAVSO International Database

www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0301.shtml - 37k -

1)Their assuming zero cobalt-56 to start with.

2)Their assuming a constant decay rate.

3)They have no other coroborating evidence that they are accurately measuring the amount thats present.

4)They have no way to test decay rates during an event that generates billions of times more heat and energy than a hydrogen bomb.

View Post


1) The half life of Cobalt 56 is seven days. It would have to have been produced fairly recently for there to be any present.

2) When have radioactive decay rates not been constant?

3) It's the decay time that is being measured. Not the amount.

4) What leads you to think that the decay rate would change because of that?

#33 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 May 2009 - 05:55 AM

I wonder if they're factoring in "time dilation"(s), and if so, how they're going about it.

#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 May 2009 - 07:49 AM

I can't get over how loyal people are to pronouncements made on such limited factors. Things that are only speculated and not demonstrable. It's like weather people versus global climate models:

Weather people pronouncements, are known to be taken with a grain of salt because what weather people say can be seen to have limited accuracy in their results. (Don't forget this is the best science with the largest pool of direct data, this is important for what I'm going to say next.)

However, we better trust those global warming climate models because they're certainly accurate regarding what's going to be happening on this planet 10, 20 and 100 years from now. ;)

Oh, and add to that the studies telling us what happened 1 million, 1 billion or 20 billon years ago and you know it's true. :lol:

#35 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 May 2009 - 03:10 PM

I can't get over how loyal people are to pronouncements made on such limited factors. Things that are only speculated and not demonstrable. It's like weather people versus global climate models:

Weather people pronouncements, are known to be taken with a grain of salt because what weather people say can be seen to have limited accuracy in their results. (Don't forget this is the best science with the largest pool of direct data, this is important for what I'm going to say next.)

However, we better trust those global warming climate models because they're certainly accurate regarding what's going to be happening on this planet 10, 20 and 100 years from now. ;)

Oh, and add to that the studies telling us what happened 1 million, 1 billion or 20 billon years ago and you know it's true. :lol:

View Post


Are you seriously comparing astronomy to meteorology? It's got nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is that there is plenty of evidence that the universe is older than 6,000 years that a YEC advocate has to account for. How do you account for it without resorting to absurdities?

#36 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 May 2009 - 03:20 PM

Are you seriously comparing astronomy to meteorology?  It's got nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is that there is plenty of evidence that the universe is older than 6,000 years that a YEC advocate has to account for.  How do you account for it without resorting to absurdities?

View Post

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

There are also evidences that show that the earth is young.

My example was very relevant for the point that I was making. I'm comparing available data to accuracy of conclusions. In my examples above the meteorologist has far more hard data available to him to draw conclusions about timed events. Yet of the three, the pronouncements of weathermen are least trusted because their conclusions can be confirmed. The ideas of long ages and future global warming are sold through rhetoric.

#37 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 May 2009 - 03:27 PM

There are also evidences that show that the earth is young.

View Post


Yes, I'm aware of the arguments made by YEC's for a young earth. What I'm asking is how do you reconcile that with the overwhelming amount of physical evidence that shows a universe and an Earth that is much older?

#38 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 May 2009 - 04:10 PM

Yes, I'm aware of the arguments made by YEC's for a young earth.  What I'm asking is how do you reconcile that with the overwhelming amount of physical evidence that shows a universe and an Earth that is much older?

View Post

Simple, it's not overwhelming, and none of it is remotely conclusive. You are trying to get me to assume, what you assume, that the cards are drastically stacked in favor of old earth evidences. I only know of one that is formidable and it's the one we're talking about; star light. However, I hope I've done a reasonable job showing my position that I just can't say it's a show stopper. The limited scope of data makes me feel comfortable that our knowledge is lacking and the weight of young earth evidences tells us there is more to the picture. You ought to consider watching this if you haven't already:

(at the very least look at what Steve Austin says in his opening comments)

http://www.answersin...ge-of-the-earth

There are plenty of thoughtful people who aren't buying the status quo on old earth orthodoxy anymore. Gary Parker's testimony is particularly interesting:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2133

As far as the evidence goes, I think you, as an evolutionist, are left with one thought provoking piece of data... star light and light speed. After that you have to deal with all the evidence that correlates with a young earth. The choice is yours.

Here is a very good talk:



I know it can be tough to decide between arguments but our time is short and more of the answer resides in our own hearts, if we're willing to look.

#39 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 May 2009 - 05:47 PM

Simple, it's not overwhelming, and none of it is remotely conclusive. You are trying to get me to assume, what you assume, that the cards are drastically stacked in favor of old earth evidences. I only know of one that is formidable and it's the one we're talking about; star light. However, I hope I've done a reasonable job showing my position that I just can't say it's a show stopper. The limited scope of data makes me feel comfortable that our knowledge is lacking and the weight of young earth evidences tells us there is more to the picture.

View Post


I'm not trying to get you to assume anything. Instead of just pretending that there is no evidence for an old universe, or hoping that the evidence will go away if ignored for long enough, I'm hoping that you will explore and research these topics for yourself. I'm not asking you to assume anything, or even take my word for it.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 May 2009 - 06:42 PM

I'm not trying to get you to assume anything.  Instead of just pretending that there is no evidence for an old universe, or hoping that the evidence will go away if ignored for long enough, I'm hoping that you will explore and research these topics for yourself.  I'm not asking you to assume anything, or even take my word for it.

View Post

You don't think I have? :lol:

Jason, you and I have known each other now for about 1/2 of a year. I would call you a friend and know you well enough now that a request for you to get educated, would be insulting. You spend a fair amount of time here and I am happy to say that you know the arguments on both sides as well as I do.

We have to accept that we don't approach the information the same and it's not the lack of information that's the problem here. Wouldn't you agree?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users