Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#221 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 January 2010 - 06:36 PM

It's pretty arrogant to say there was nothing before the invention of writing.  It's really no suprise that writing arose after large-scale agriculture.

View Post


No, it's just a simple fact. None historical writings prove nothing. Modern evolutionist dated those as being older because they had no empiracle evidence to go on, other than wishful thinking.

#222 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 January 2010 - 06:40 PM

Hi scott

What about supernovas? We had a long thread recently about these, and how they show an age for the universe as greater than 100,000 years, which is completely incompatible with a young-earth timeframe.

Cheers
SeeJay

View Post


The reason is because you are never able to explain how you judge your distances on. You can't, because the distances are always assumed. You have no points of reference, the rings on the supernova are not points of reference because you don't know the distance in the first place to even make an accurate formula for an accurate answer.

Even if you use the constant of light as a measure of speed, it will not give the distance, and you will not know how to use that speed to get your distance, especially if the distance is assumed. Which it is, everytime, because no spaceship, or man has ever travled the distance to confirm the distance.

#223 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 January 2010 - 06:53 PM

The reason is because you are never able to explain how you judge your distances on.  You can't, because the distances are always assumed.  You have no points of reference, the rings on the supernova are not points of reference because you don't know the distance in the first place to even make an accurate formula for an accurate answer.

Even if you use the constant of light as a measure of speed, it will not give the distance, and you will not know how to use that speed to get your distance, especially if the distance is assumed.  Which it is, everytime, because no spaceship, or man has ever travled the distance to confirm the distance.

View Post


It's typical Uniformitarianism Scott. One needs the ideology to cover for information they don't have. A god of the gaps, if you will.

#224 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:25 PM

That's not recorded as being 30,000 years B.C. by human historians of the time either.  Only strange unscientific evolutionary dating was used for that one.

View Post


What strange unscientific dating are you talking about?

I do know that the 'scientific' radiometric carbon dating that was performed on the pigment shows an age of of ~32,000 years.

Peace

#225 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:35 PM

What strange unscientific dating are you talking about?

I do know that the 'scientific' radiometric carbon dating that was performed on the pigment shows an age of of ~32,000 years.

Peace

View Post


Radiometric carbon dating is exactly what I'm speaking of. It's unreliable, and assumes that the decay rates of EVERYTHING is absolutely the same each and everytime. That is the point of reference.

It may become clear in the following years, of the Churnobel, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki events that radioactive decay rates may not be what Scientist would have you believe. These areas are becoming less radioactive every day. They are supposed to remain radioactive for thousands upon thousands of years, but such is not the case.

Remember, these decay rates are assumed, especially because they have not EVER been witnessed. The Nuclear events that happened in the past are our only TRUE, reliable points of reference. Why? Because they are empiracle, and you can touch them. Some without dying from radiation sickness.

#226 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:47 PM

The reason is because you are never able to explain how you judge your distances on.  You can't, because the distances are always assumed.  You have no points of reference, the rings on the supernova are not points of reference because you don't know the distance in the first place to even make an accurate formula for an accurate answer.

Even if you use the constant of light as a measure of speed, it will not give the distance, and you will not know how to use that speed to get your distance, especially if the distance is assumed.  Which it is, everytime, because no spaceship, or man has ever travled the distance to confirm the distance.

View Post


I believe that what SeeJay is referring to, is that when you look at the image of the supernova when it first occured in 1987, and then look at the position of the shockwave ring a year later, it shows to have travelled exactly 1 lightyear.

This 1 lightyear distance was already predetermined based on the astronomical distance from the earth to the supernova.

The Pythagorean Theorem in action.

Glenn Morton article

Supernova 1987A proves the speed of light has been constant for 170,000 years.

If the speed of light has changed, then

1. the rates of radioactive decay will also have changed.

2. the energy of radiation emitted by an atom will change.

In 1987 a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud exploded. Or rather, the light from the explosion reached earth. Nine months later astronomers discovered a ring of gas with a diameter of 1.37 light years around the former star. They also discovered the characteristic gamma ray emission of Co-57 and Co-56. These gamma rays had the same energy that we observe in an earth laboratory. This means that the speed of light was the same as it is today when the star exploded. Theoretical models of a supernova said that the decay of radioactive Co-56 and Co-57 would power the light given off by the supernova gases. The light curve has decayed at precisely the half-life as we measure in our labs for Co-56 and Co-57. This further confirms that the speed of light was the same as today when the star exploded. The time it took the light to travel from the supernova to the ring allows us to measure the size of the gas ring shown above. Knowing this and the angular size of the ring as seen in a telescope gives us a distance of 170,000 light years to the star. Thus, since the distance to the supernova can be trigonometrically determined, the speed of light has been constant for the past 170,000 years.


Posted Image

Peace

#227 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:56 PM

I believe that what SeeJay is referring to, is that when you look at the image of the supernova when it first occured in 1987, and then look at the position of the shockwave ring a year later, it shows to have travelled exactly 1 lightyear.

This 1 lightyear distance was already predetermined based on the astronomical distance from the earth to the supernova.

The Pythagorean Theorem in action.
Posted Image

Peace

View Post


There is still no point of reference... did someone magically fly a spaceship to said location, and mark reference points of the actual distance.

Again, there are no points of reference to even make an accuarte claim of the distance. Plus the distance is assumed in the first place. Are you claiming that people have traveled the distance?

The ring of the supernova is not a point of reference. WHY? Because the distance is not known.

You can't use the Pythagoran Theorem, because your variables are ASSUMED. Well you can use it, but you'll only get an assumed answer, because of the assumed variables, plus the assumed reference points.

This is why Earth to Star formula's are not valid. There are no point's of reference. The astronomical distance is assumed!!! There are no point's of reference.

#228 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:52 PM

Radiometric carbon dating is exactly what I'm speaking of.  It's unreliable, and assumes that the decay rates of EVERYTHING is absolutely the same each and everytime.  That is the point of reference.

It may become clear in the following years, of the Churnobel, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki events that radioactive decay rates may not be what Scientist would have you believe.  These areas are becoming less radioactive every day.  They are supposed to remain radioactive for thousands upon thousands of years, but such is not the case.

Remember, these decay rates are assumed, especially because they have not EVER been witnessed.  The Nuclear events that happened in the past are our only TRUE, reliable points of reference.  Why? Because they are empiracle, and you can touch them.  Some without dying from radiation sickness.

View Post


Scott, the nuclear events that you are referring to, have nothing to do with establishing a reference for radiometric dating.

Radioactive isotopes decay at a very precise rate.

This is observed and empirical.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years

By taking the natural log of the ratio of C12 to C14 in the 'dead' sample to the ratio found in a living organism and multiplying it times the halflife of C14, you can date formerly living organisms out to ~60,000 years.

age = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x 5730

where:
Nf = ratio of c14 to c12 in 'dead' sample
No = ratio of c14 to c12 in living organism

There are other ways to present this formula without using natural log. But this is how it is presented in one of my reference text.

Peace

#229 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:53 PM

Scott, the nuclear events that you are referring to, have nothing to do with establishing a reference for radiometric dating.

Radioactive isotopes decay at a very precise rate.

This is observed and empirical.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years

By taking the natural log of the ratio of C12 to C14 in the 'dead' sample to the ratio found in a living organism and multiplying it times the halflife of C14, you can date formerly living organisms out to ~60,000 years.

age = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x 5730

where:
Nf = ratio of c14 to c12 in 'dead' sample
No = ratio of c14 to c12 in living organism

There are other ways to present this formula without using natural log. But this is how it is presented in one of my reference text.

Peace

View Post


Are you so sure? Because it has everything to do with radioctive decay. What you speak of is not OBSERVED empirically, but assumed upon Atomic studies. These are assumptions, and they must be somehow played out.

These long age half lives have not been observed, not for one second have they ever been observed in the history of mankind. Unless you believe that someone rented a time machine and recorded decay rates for 60,000 years.

#230 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 07 January 2010 - 09:00 PM

There is still no point of reference... did someone magically fly a spaceship to said location, and mark reference points of the actual distance.

Again, there are no points of reference to even make an accuarte claim of the distance.  Plus the distance is assumed in the first place.  Are you claiming that people have traveled the distance?

The ring of the supernova is not a point of reference.  WHY?  Because the distance is not known.

You can't use the Pythagoran Theorem, because your variables are ASSUMED.  Well you can use it, but you'll only get an assumed answer, because of the assumed variables, plus the assumed reference points.

This is why Earth to Star formula's are not valid.  There are no point's of reference.  The astronomical distance is assumed!!!  There are no point's of reference.

View Post


Scott.

The point is...that the calculated distance to the star based on the speed of light constant 'c', is verified by the measurement of the ring...they correlate to each other.

If 'c' was not constant, then the measurements woiuld not have fit...but they do.

If you cannot see the basic math behind this...I don't think that I can convince you further.

Peace

#231 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 January 2010 - 09:03 PM

Scott.

The point is...that the calculated distance to the star based on the speed of light constant 'c', is verified by the measurement of the ring...they correlate to each other.

If 'c' was not constant, then the measurements woiuld not have fit...but they do.

If you cannot see the basic math behind this...I don't think that I can convince you further.

Peace

View Post


Then clearly I understand the basic math better than you, because I actually see that you can't get a correct answer when your distance variables, and your reference points are assumed. The speed of light won't help if you don't have a reference point for the distance. You don't know the distance of the ring to Planet Earth. That's Impossible, unless you've traveled the distance.

I hope you realize that. Other than that I don't think that I can convince you further if you can't see the logical mistake in the math.

Just so you know, the formula itself works, but it will only give you an assumed answer, because of the variables that you used to plug in for A, B, and C.

#232 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 07 January 2010 - 09:20 PM

Are you so sure?  Because it has everything to do with radioctive decay.  What you speak of is not OBSERVED empirically, but assumed upon Atomic studies.  These are assumptions, and they must be somehow played out.

These long age half lives have not been observed, not for one second have they ever been observed in the history of mankind.  Unless you believe that someone rented a time machine and recorded decay rates for 60,000 years.

View Post


Radioactive decay rate is based on scintillation counts ..

Scintillation occurs when a gamma ray (photon) hits a detector surface.

The higher the number of counts, the higher the precision.

Radioactive decay rates are a hard science and have been studied for over a hundred years.

Peace

#233 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 January 2010 - 09:30 PM

Radioactive decay rate is based on scintillation counts ..

Scintillation occurs when a gamma ray (photon) hits a detector surface.

The higher the number of counts, the higher the precision.

Radioactive decay rates are a hard science and have been studied for over a hundred years.

Peace

View Post


Yet in only a hundred years they really believe that they've witnessed 60,000 years? No, I'm not buying that for one second.

Atomic decay rates, such as Churnobel, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima are our only empiracly reliable forms of testing decay rates.

Why? Because it's putting the theory of decay rate to the ultimate test. It's the pinnacle of radiation research.

#234 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 07 January 2010 - 09:47 PM

Then clearly I understand the basic math better than you, because I actually see that you can't get a correct answer when your distance variables, and your reference points are assumed.  The speed of light won't help if you don't have a reference point for the distance.  You don't know the distance of the ring to Planet Earth.  That's Impossible, unless you've traveled the distance.

I hope you realize that. Other than that I don't think that I can convince you further if you can't see the logical mistake in the math.

Just so you know, the formula itself works, but it will only give you an assumed answer, because of the variables that you used to plug in for A, B, and C.

View Post



SN1987a Link

Calculating the Distance to SN1987A, Todd S. Green

After the progenitor star Sk-69 202 exploded, astronomers measured the time it took for the energy to travel from the star to the primary ring that is around the star. From this, we can determined the actual radius of the ring from the star. Second, we already knew the angular size of the ring against the sky (as measured through telescopes, and measured most precisely with the Hubble Space Telescope).

So to carry out the calculation think of a right triangle as indicated in the diagram below.

Posted Image

The line from SN1987A to earth (distance) is the base.
A line from SN1987A to the ring (the radius of the ring) is the height.
The line from the ring to earth is the hypotenuse.
The angle between the base and the hypotenuse is half the angular size of the ring
trig formula: base = radius ÷ tan(angle)


There is much more information included in the link.

Peace

#235 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:12 AM

...
If I need God to believe in 6000 years, then it's really not a scientific guess at all, is it?

View Post

Actually, as scott has pointed out already, it IS a scientific "guess" - (sorry, I'm going to shout) BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY EMPIRICAL "EVIDENCE" WE HAVE - the lineages given in the Bible.

The Bible, not a single historical account it contains, has EVER been proven false - many have tried, but the result was that they actually proved it to be true.

If the Bible is true on every account, then it IS true on the account of Creation and the subsequent lineages - showing empirically that the history of Earth is 6000 years.

So, whether you believe God or not - it's still the only reliable empirical evidence we have.

It's easy enough for a child to understand!
Matthew 18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Your retort could be:
But 1 Corinthians 13:11 says "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Here is the answer:
We are to believe as a child, while at the same time we are to "have dominion over...". The balance comes when our limited human understanding seems to contradict what the Bible says, that is when we must rely on faith.

Edit:
The OP asks for "Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe", the only evidence we have is what we have here on Earth. We assume things about the universe, but again it is not empirical - so we must rely on empirical evidence we have here. The only reliable/proven evidence we have, thus far, is the Bible - the Bible says 6000 years - we must include the universe in this calculation.

Edit #2:
That is why this thread is useless, the OP'er has already said they won't accept our "evidence" - so why even ask in the first place? (rhetorical)

I'm coming to the point of having an "ecclesiastical" attitude in this forum! People asking for information they will never accept, just doesn't seem like a good way to spend my time :(

#236 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:21 AM

Scott.

The point is...that the calculated distance to the star based on the speed of light constant 'c', is verified by the measurement of the ring...they correlate to each other.

If 'c' was not constant, then the measurements woiuld not have fit...but they do.

If you cannot see the basic math behind this...I don't think that I can convince you further.

Peace

View Post


What's more, anyone with a solid foundation in trig and geometry could calculate that a faster speed of light(more specifically an exponential slowing) would actually make the universe older.

#237 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:16 AM

What's more, anyone with a solid foundation in trig and geometry could calculate that a faster speed of light(more specifically an exponential slowing) would actually make the universe older.

View Post


What's more is that you previously stated that the formula had nothing to do with a constant speed of light. I don't believe that the speed of light was faster in the past. I personally know that the formula doesn't work, because its reference points are assumed upon the beginning of the easy formula.

#238 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:32 AM

What's more is that you previously stated that the formula had nothing to do with a constant speed of light.  I don't believe that the speed of light was faster in the past.  I personally know that the formula doesn't work, because its reference points are assumed upon the beginning of the easy formula.

View Post



Scott,

One important factor that you are missing concerning astronomy and the measurement of stellar distance, is 'parallax' measurements.

Parallax is the same method that military binoculars use to verify distance to target.

Please refer to the following two links to understand how star distances are determined using parallax measurements.

Parallax wiki link

Parallax is an apparent displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.[1][2] The term is derived from the Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis), meaning "alteration". Nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances. In astronomy, parallax is the only direct method by which distances to objects (typically stars) beyond the Solar System can be measured. The Hipparcos satellite has used the technique for over 100,000 nearby stars. This provides the basis for all other distance measurements in astronomy, the cosmic distance ladder. Here, the term "parallax" is the angle or semi-angle of inclination between two sightlines to the star.


Star Measurement Link

The point of the whole 1987a Nova reference, is to show that the parallax measurements corroborate the speed of light and vice-versa.

It also verified that the speed of light has not changed in over 170,000 years.

Peace

#239 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:46 AM

Scott,

One important factor that you are missing concerning astronomy and the measurement of stellar distance, is 'parallax' measurements.

Parallax is the same method that military binoculars use to verify distance to target.

Please refer to the following two links to understand how star distances are determined using parallax measurements.
Star Measurement Link

The point of the whole 1987a Nova reference, is to show that the parallax measurements corroborate the speed of light and vice-versa.

It also verified that the speed of light has not changed in over 170,000 years.

Peace

View Post



As I explained earlier. Parallax won't work because the distance of the background objects aren't known. No reference points.

These distances are previously assumed upon a constant light speed such as the 1987a supernova... which the formula assumes they know the distance of the radius, therefore they think they can figure the formula using the radius as a reference point.

Again, the reference points are basically assumed, and never verified.

#240 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:56 AM

As I explained earlier.  Parallax won't work because the distance of the background objects aren't known.  No reference points.

These distances are previously assumed upon a constant light speed such as the 1987a supernova... which the formula assumes they know the distance of the radius, therefore they think they can figure the formula using the radius as a reference point.

Again, the reference points are basically assumed, and never verified.

View Post


Scott,

Did you read the links to understand how parallax works?
The two different points of reference are obtained 6 months apart, when the earth is on the two opposite sides of the sun, in order to get the greatest degree of accuracy.

Posted Image

Military 'parallax binoculars work because they use widely spaced lenses.

Peace




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users