Jump to content


Photo

Age Of The Earth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
15 replies to this topic

#1 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:50 AM

In order for evolution to be the explanation of the diversity of life on earth, I think everyone will agree that the earth must be extremely old. Evolutionists insist that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. My question is... for evolution to be true, one would have to ASSUME that the sun has been relatively stable for that length of time. Bearing in mind that all life on earth is fragile and will succumb to relatively minimal variations of temperature, Is it reasonable to assume that the sun has remained in a constant state of heat outpul for the past 4.5 billion years? Given the second law of thermodynamic, i.e., the law of increasing entropy, I'm finding it very difficult to just assume that everything as been stable for that length of time. What sort of theory of stellar evolution would allow the Sun to be in a constant state for 4.5 billion years?... I think such a theory would defy all known laws of physicis.

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 October 2005 - 02:04 PM

In order for evolution to be the explanation of the diversity of life on earth, I think everyone will agree that the earth must be extremely old.  Evolutionists insist that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.  My question is... for evolution to be true, one would have to  ASSUME that the sun has  been relatively stable for that length of time.  Bearing in mind that all life on earth is fragile and will succumb to relatively minimal variations of temperature, Is it reasonable to assume that the sun has remained in a constant state of heat outpul for the past 4.5 billion years?  Given the second law of thermodynamic, i.e., the law of increasing entropy, I'm finding it very difficult to just assume that everything as been stable for that length of time.  What sort of theory of stellar evolution would allow the Sun to be in a constant state for 4.5 billion years?... I think such a theory would defy all known laws of physicis.

View Post


Google the “Hertzprung-Russel Diagram”, (there are very many links). This explains far better than I could the life cycle of stars, our sun happens to be a yellow dwarf. Let me know what you find and if there is some point you wish to expand upon.

Stable, is some what relative, our sun has been increasing in temperature, and is very slightly variable (as are all stars).

I’m not sure what you are referring to with your 2’nd LoT, the sun does not violate this law as it is decreasing in energy (at a more or less fixed speed) at a stupendous rate.

#3 Xgeo

Xgeo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Friesland (NL)

Posted 04 October 2005 - 05:09 AM

... I think such a theory would defy all known laws of physicis.

View Post


Just for the record:

A theory that 'defies all known laws of physics' is merely a call for research into the unknown laws of physics (which exist without a doubt) to supplement the known laws of physics. It does not mean that a theory is incorrect.

A theory is by definition incomplete. As soon as it is complete, it becomes a principle or law. And by any case, disproving a theory does not mean it is prove for another theory, unless this other theory has used evidence to predict the result that disproves the first theory.

#4 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 October 2005 - 08:18 AM

Just for the record:

A theory that 'defies all known laws of physics' is merely a call for research into the unknown laws of physics (which exist without a doubt) to supplement the known laws of physics. It does not mean that a theory is incorrect.

A theory is by definition incomplete. As soon as it is complete, it becomes a principle or law. And by any case, disproving a theory does not mean it is prove for another theory, unless this other theory has used evidence to predict the result that disproves the first theory.

View Post

This is precisely the problem with evolutionary thinking. The assumption is made that evolution is a law of nature, and subsequently ad hoc hypotheses are contrived to account for obvious flaws in the ToE. I'm using the shrinking sun argument to point out that to assume that the sun has been stable and unchanging for 4.5 billion years is unreasonable, and I'm using it to debunk the ToE. Unless someone can invoke some known physical law of the universe that counteracts the second law of thermodynamics, then this should be regarded by the unbiased investigator as very hostile evidence against the ToE. You can't assume that the ToE is a law of nature and proceed to figure out some half baked explanation as to how the sun could have been stable for 4.5 billion years...

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 October 2005 - 02:21 PM

[quote name='Springer' date='Oct 14 2005, 01:18 AM']
[quote] This is precisely the problem with evolutionary thinking. The assumption is made that evolution is a law of nature, and subsequently ad hoc hypotheses are contrived to account for obvious flaws in the ToE. I'm using the shrinking sun argument to point out that to assume that the sun has been stable and unchanging for 4.5 billion years is unreasonable, and I'm using it to debunk the ToE. Unless someone can invoke some known physical law of the universe that counteracts the second law of thermodynamics, then this should be regarded by the unbiased investigator as very hostile evidence against the ToE. You can't assume that the ToE is a law of nature and proceed to figure out some half baked explanation as to how the sun could have been stable for 4.5 billion years... [/quote]

Do I understand you correctly in that you are proposing that the Shrinking sun hypothesis is the powerhouse of our Sun? :)

#6 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 October 2005 - 06:56 PM

Do I understand you correctly in that you are proposing that the Shrinking sun hypothesis is the powerhouse of our Sun?  :o

View Post

I'm not sure what you mean... I'm simply stating that one cannot assume that the sun has been unchanging for 4.5 billion years... and that's an essential requirement to swallow the ToE. The Sun in certainly shrinking in size, at least for the past more than one hundred years that measurements have been taken. Extrapolating back in time, it's obvious that at some point the sun would have been too hot for life on earth. Given its current rate of decay, for example, it has been calculated that the sun would have been twice its size only 2 million years ago, and would have been large enough to touch the surface of the earth 200 million years ago. Obviously there is debate as to the rate of shrinkage, and stellar evolution is not an exact science. All I'm saying is that I've yet to hear an explanation as to how the sun could have been unchanging for a 4.5 billion year length of time, given our knowledge that all matter obeys the second law of thermodynamics. The stability of the sun has only been assumed by evolutionists, and I would say very unreasonably so.

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 October 2005 - 07:19 PM

I'm not sure what you mean... I'm simply stating that one cannot assume that the sun has been unchanging for 4.5 billion years... and that's an essential requirement to swallow the ToE.


The sun has not remained unchanged, it’s getting hotter and larger.

The Sun in certainly shrinking in size, at least for the past more than one hundred years that measurements have been taken.


Where on earth did you get this idea from !!!!

Extrapolating back in time, it's obvious that at some point the sun would have been too hot for life on earth. Given its current rate of decay, for example, it has been calculated that the sun would have been twice its size only 2 million years ago, and would have been large enough to touch the surface of the earth 200 million years ago.


!!! I’m, … lost for words (stop cheering) :o . Man you got to give me that link, please.

Obviously there is debate as to the rate of shrinkage, and stellar evolution is not an exact science. All I'm saying is that I've yet to hear an explanation as to how the sun could have been unchanging for a 4.5 billion year length of time, given our knowledge that all matter obeys the second law of thermodynamics. The stability of the sun has only been assumed by evolutionists, and I would say very unreasonably so.


Please, please, please, Google the “Hertzprung-Russel Diagram”, then we can at least have some common ground re the stellar life cycle. Then explain how you think the 2LoT comes into play.

#8 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 14 October 2005 - 11:04 AM

Please, please, please,  Google the “Hertzprung-Russel Diagram”, then we can at least have some common ground re the stellar life cycle.  Then explain how you think the 2LoT comes into play.

I've looked at both sides of the argument and, again, who are you going to believe? My point is that it's unreasonable to just ASSUME that the sun has been stable enough for 4.5 billion years to support life during that entire time, given our current knowledge of physics (second law of thermodynamics)

View Post



#9 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 October 2005 - 05:52 PM

A theory that 'defies all known laws of physics' is merely a call for research into the unknown laws of physics (which exist without a doubt) to supplement the known laws of physics. It does not mean that a theory is incorrect.


Theories which contradict the known laws of physics are readily dismissed by a rational person.

A theory is by definition incomplete. As soon as it is complete, it becomes a principle or law. And by any case, disproving a theory does not mean it is prove for another theory, unless this other theory has used evidence to predict the result that disproves the first theory.


In the idea of competing idealogies, and that's what this is about, if one idealogy is shown to be weak, or false, then its reason for a person to consider competing idealogies.

Terry

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 October 2005 - 02:27 PM

I've looked at both sides of the argument and, again, who are you going to believe? My point is that it's unreasonable to just ASSUME that the sun has been stable enough for 4.5 billion years to support life during that entire time, given our current knowledge of physics (second law of thermodynamics)


This is a difficult topic to broach, because it is clear that you feel you have to make a choice between, your faith (YEC), and the areas of science that point to an old universe and evolution. Indeed who are you going to believe. But the science on the life cycle of stars is now very good, the fusion process is defiantly the reason stars shine, and the math predicts a stars life (and stability) is dictated by it’s starting mass, this is far far from an assumption.

#11 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 16 October 2005 - 04:35 PM

[QUOTE]This is a difficult topic to broach, because it is clear that you feel you have to make a choice between, your faith (YEC), and the areas of science that point to an old universe and evolution. [QUOTE]
You falsely presume that my beliefs are based solely on blind faith. Theories of solar evolution are bent and conformed to fit the predetermined dogma of a 4.5 billion year history of organic evolution on the earth.

#12 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 October 2005 - 01:36 PM

You falsely presume that my beliefs are based solely on blind faith.

Apologies, I do tend to make that assumption. Happy to stick to the science.

Theories of solar evolution are bent and conformed to fit the predetermined dogma of a 4.5 billion year history of organic evolution on the earth.


Oh, come now! Atomic bombs work just fine they use the same theory that make the sun shine.

Where is the conspiracy in nucleare science?
What do you believe to be the source of the sun’s energy?

#13 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 17 October 2005 - 06:20 PM

Oh, come now!  Atomic bombs work just fine they use the same theory that make the sun shine.


The functioning of atomic bombs does not depend on a 4.5 billion year old sun.

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 October 2005 - 01:24 PM

The functioning of atomic bombs does not depend on a 4.5 billion year old sun.

View Post


I’m afraid that you are creating a false dilemma because I never said that atomic bomb ‘function’ depends on the age of the sun.
In context - Atomic theory (fusion), explains the process of the sun and atomic bombs, there is no doubt about this. There is ample mass in the sun for it to have shined for 4.5 billion years in the past and for (I think) another 4.5 billion into the future (the sun being midway in it’s life cycle).

#15 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 18 October 2005 - 08:07 PM

I’m afraid that you are creating a false dilemma because I never said that atomic bomb ‘function’ depends on the age of the sun. 
In context -  Atomic theory (fusion), explains the process of the sun and atomic bombs, there is no doubt about this.  There is ample mass in the sun for it to have shined for 4.5 billion years in the past and for (I think) another 4.5 billion into the future (the sun being midway in it’s life cycle).

View Post

I'm saying that the science used to develop atomic bombs doesn't depend on the sun being 4.5 billion years old. The determined age of the sun is highly speculative. You need to know how to differentiate between hard science and theories based on assumptions.

#16 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 October 2005 - 01:41 PM

I'm saying that the science used to develop atomic bombs doesn't depend on the sun being 4.5 billion years old.


Much better, I concur.


The determined age of the sun is highly speculative.


Really!, then perhaps you can explain why you think that it is speculation? (or is this going to be another abiogenesis debate where you refuse to back up your claim)

You need to know how to differentiate between hard science and theories based on assumptions.


Example please.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users