Jump to content


Observable Scientific Evidence


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

#1 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2006 - 04:44 AM

There is plenty of scientific observation that contradicts YEC.  Off the top of my head, a vast universe beyond 6000 light years that we can actually see is one observation.


If that's the best you can do then I rest my case.... :) Dr. Humphrey's has developed a White Hole Cosmology that demonstrates how the universe could be only 6000 years old, and have stars, and such that appear to billions of light years away.

The problem here is that there are things that are interpreted to come up with certain results. The interpretations are based on assumptions, and that takes them out of the realm of emperical science. Sure the measurements that cosmologists make can be reapeated, i.e. they are observable, but the interpretations, are not measurements, They are philosophical choices....

Terry

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 September 2006 - 02:07 PM

When dealing with Dr. Humphrey's it pays to check his mathematics as indeed has the U. S. Naval Academy (which has a prestigious Astronomy division). http://www.serve.com/herrmann/hump.htm

Extract,

But, Humphreys states that Lambda is set at a large value on day two of his creation model in order to produce a "rapid, inflationary expansion of space". (1994, p. 124) As shown in the paper by Moles (1991), as cited by Humphreys, the above value for Lambda does not appear to be the large value Humphreys is suggesting for his expansion model.







http://www.reasons.o...ling.shtml?main

the source above quotes that dr. Humphreys admits his own model is flawed an has more or less abandoned it (references provided in the link).

Extract

In his latest attempt to defend Starlight and Time, Humphreys actually quietly abandons it. The three central arguments of the original Starlight and Time proposal were:

1. The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it "the essence" of his new cosmological model.
2 The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.
3 The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.


This view is largly acknowledged by the ICR at http://www.icr.org/i...esearchp_df_r01

Extract

Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model.






IMO Dr. Humphreys works the following way, “find a mathematical solution to fit the YEC time line” I do believe he does not use current evidence to support his work (By that I mean the big bang has such evidence as, the expanding universe (measurable), back ground microwave radiation (measurable) etc). If anyone disagrees, I would be interested in knowing what evidence Dr Humphrey has to support his idea.

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2006 - 04:45 PM

Chance,

If you want to start a thread about Dr. Humphrey's model fine, but that is not the point to this thread.

The main point that Dr. Humphrey's points out, even if his theory is wrong, is that there are assumptions behind the idea that the universe is old. Its not emperical data that speaks for itself, it must be interpreted.

Also; I think its rather specious to claim that the Naval Academy has critiqued his work, and claims that is math is wrong, because some professor in the Math Dept concludes:

This all signifies that, prior to accepting this model as viable, an additional analysis is required for the exterior geometry and its relation to the cosmological constant using the proper metrics that describe the gravitational fields.

.

The tennor of your comment(that his math needs to be checked, as if he's incompetant) brings to mind the mathematically challenged critque from talkorigins about his magnetic field predictions, which do actually work from emperical data. I would like to not go down that road again.

Terry

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 September 2006 - 07:08 PM

Chance,

If you want to start a thread about Dr. Humphrey's model fine, but that is not the point to this thread.

apologies, I did indeed assume that was the point.

The main point that Dr. Humphrey's points out, even if his theory is wrong, is that there are assumptions behind the idea that the universe is old. Its not emperical data that speaks for itself, it must be interpreted.


I would disagree with this point. After reading "Revolutions in the Earth" by Baxter, the story of James Hutton. Wiki link http://en.wikipedia....ki/James_Hutton

James Hutton’s conclusion that the earth was old and not young was only because of empirical data, i.e. the geological strata, no preconceived assumptions. The prevailing theory at the time was the young earth, then called “Neptunist theory”.

Given that mans history (Middle East, European) has for the greater part been, young earth (based on biblical references), I find it strange how anyone could think that old earth assumptions were required! And what are they?

#5 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2006 - 07:03 AM

James Hutton’s conclusion that the earth was old and not young was only because of empirical data, i.e. the geological strata, no preconceived assumptions.


Geological strata are emperical data, but how they formed is based on an assumption. If you want to show that the formation took place over millions of years, you would need millions of years to perform each experiment.

It has been emerically shown that strata can form very fast, and do not require millions of years. You can read about that again here:

In summary, these experiments demonstrate that stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures can result from: segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds, and desiccation for joints. Therefore, superposed strata are not necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers.


Rapid stratification

Please do not wonder off on the article itself...

IMO, this is a very important point to what is generally discussed here at all. The inability to distinguish between what is emperically observed data, and what is extrapolated is what has caused many people to make false claims that science has shown things it has not shown.

Generally speaking, what you can really say, is that scientists believe this, or they believe that. However; all of that just amounts to a statement of beliefs, and not scientific evidence.

Terry

#6 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2006 - 07:15 AM

There is no observable science that does not agree with a YEC interpetation of reality.  *snip*
Terry

View Post

This is only true in the sense that under the orchestration of an omnipotent God, obviously, anything is possible. God could have created folded and eroded mountains, mountains of sediment rocks, lifted conglomerate rocks, isotope traces, etc, etc, etc, at the wave of His hand.

IF, on the other hand, we are to assume that the world acts at least generally to the rules we have come to know as the laws of nature, then it is utterly impossible that Earth is not vastly more ancient than biblical timescales allow it to be.

The only "speculation" in this is the assumption that the laws of nature apply, and that "speculation" is supported by the fact that nobody has, as of yet, been able to show as much as a single verifiable incidence where they don't.

Hans

#7 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2006 - 07:35 AM

The only "speculation" in this is the assumption that the laws of nature apply, and that "speculation" is supported by the fact that nobody has, as of yet, been able to show as much as a single verifiable incidence where they don't.


Exactly what laws are you talking about?

The one that rock strata form over millions of years? That's already been emperically demonstated to not necessarily be the case.

The law that says radio isotopes have always decayed at the same rate? That's also been emperically shown to not necessarily have always been the case. And if I'm not mistaken, while I know nothing about string theory, it does have a factor that allows decay rates to possibly change in it.

The law that says 65 million year old bones will not completly permineralize and still contain amino-acids that have not racemized?

The simple fact is that you cannot emperically test the past, and IMO, an objective person will always be very carefull with how they handle that topic. I had a several hour long face-to-face discussion once with an agnostic Ph.D. phycisist some years ago about this topic. While he would not agree with me on most things, he admitted that its very risky to take what is observed in the present, and extrapolate backwards in time.

Terry

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 September 2006 - 02:25 PM

Geological strata are emperical data, but how they formed is based on an assumption. If you want to show that the formation took place over millions of years, you would need millions of years to perform each experiment.


That argument can equally be applied to young earth, you would need 1000’s years etc.


It has been emerically shown that strata can form very fast, and do not require millions of years. You can read about that again here: In summary, these experiments demonstrate that stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures can result from: segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds, and desiccation for joints. Therefore, superposed strata are not necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers.


Of course it can, no geologist would deny that some strata can form quickly.
The question is, is there any reason why strata cannot build slowly? if you cannot provide a reason why, then the only question remaining is how to tell the difference between strata that formed rapidly and strata that formed slowly. Do you agree so far?

So, given that there are two possibilities, neither of which the geologist would know until he examined any particular strata, why would there be any assumptions? Lets say he was blindfolded and taken to Mt St Helens, given a shovel and told to dig, do you think he would come to any other conclusion other than, rapid burial caused by a volcanic eruption?



Re the article from AiG, seems to me they have artificially created a ‘conglomerate’, a naturally occurring phenomena under the right conditions, I am inclined to ask what exactly they think they have proved.

#9 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 04 September 2006 - 05:11 PM

Chance, ... I think its rather specious to claim that the Naval Academy has critiqued his work, and claims that is math is wrong, because some professor in the Math Dept concludes...:

View Post


The following is somewhat in chance's defense, but more to thank him for using a good scientific source and to laud this source: "...it pays to check his mathematics as indeed has the U. S. Naval Academy (which has a prestigious Astronomy division).

Chance, were you aware that Dr. Herrmann is a staunch young earth creationist? :)

(He is a long time member of the Creaetion Research Society)

Fred

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2006 - 05:37 PM

The following is somewhat in chance's defense, but more to thank him for using a good scientific source and to laud this source: "...it pays to check his mathematics as indeed has the U. S. Naval Academy (which has a prestigious Astronomy division).

Chance, were you aware that Dr. Herrmann is a staunch young earth creationist?  :D

(He is a long time member of the Creaetion Research Society)

Fred

View Post


:) :) :) I guess I'll have to hide my head in shame... :) :mellow: :mellow:

Terry

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 September 2006 - 06:50 PM

The following is somewhat in chance's defense, but more to thank him for using a good scientific source and to laud this source: "...it pays to check his mathematics as indeed has the U. S. Naval Academy (which has a prestigious Astronomy division).

Chance, were you aware that Dr. Herrmann is a staunch young earth creationist?  :)

(He is a long time member of the Creaetion Research Society)

Fred

View Post


No I did not know that Fred. Everyone should applaud any work from any source that is conducted in the true sprit of scientific investigation (if we are indeed focusing on the science).

That the CRS (assuming they endorse Dr. Herrmann) has found fault with work from another creationist and had the guts to say so publicly, should be encouraged, indeed it is the true scientific way.

To Dr Humphrys I say “welcome to science”.

#12 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:48 PM

To Dr Humphrys I say “welcome to science”.

View Post


Now you are going overboard, so let's not take this where it shouldn't go. Dr Humphries is one of the brightest scientists I know and has many peer-reviewed publications in both secular and creation journals. He knows far more about science than your comment may lead some to believe (I happen to know he was highly a reputable staff scientist during his long stint at Sandia Labs before retiring). Often papers that pass peer-review don't always get the peer-review they deserve, it happens in the secular journals and it happens in the creation journals.

This also doesn't mean his model is invalidated, but he is having to adjust it. I also have not heard of any fatal blows brought against it. That being said, for the record I really don’t ascribe to his theory. I think it’s definitely possible, and perhaps the best theory proposed so far, I’m just skeptical of it, admittedly mostly on theological grounds (to me it relies on some secular ideas I do not have 100% confidence in, and it seems to imply an old universe).

Sorry for going off-topic, I just wanted to interject the bit about Dr Hermmann. I certainly didnt' want to have to defend Humphries.

Fred

#13 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2006 - 08:32 AM

If that's the best  you can do then I rest my case.... :)  Dr. Humphrey's has developed a White Hole Cosmology that demonstrates how the universe could be only 6000 years old, and have stars, and such that appear to billions of light years away. 

The problem here is that there are things that are interpreted to come up with certain results. 

View Post


It's not just starlight I have a problem with, thats just one of my favourite examples of how its very easy to find evidence older than 6000 years. If the earth is only 6000 years old, you shouldn't be able to do that.

Just as we shouldn't be able to find evidence of pottery and agriculture that can be dated back further than 4000 BC.

The interpretations are based on assumptions, and that takes them out of the realm of emperical science.  Sure the measurements that cosmologists make can be reapeated, i.e. they are observable, but the interpretations, are not measurements,  They are philosophical choices....

Terry


There is quite a lot of things we can agree on in physics without having to invoke god, for example, we can agree that General and Special relativity are useful and provide us with good predictions. From there we can make observations about the world around us, and use science to work out what the most likely explanation for that is. And the only assumption we have to make is that the universe is deterministic and testable.

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 September 2006 - 01:23 PM

Now you are going overboard, so let's not take this where it shouldn't go.

View Post


The remark “welcome to science” was not meant to be (sound) derogatory, indeed if one is going to publish articles in mainstream science or creation science, you should expect/encourage critical review.

#15 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2006 - 12:09 PM

I missed this on the first read :) it always pays to read things more than once!

Exactly what laws are you talking about?
Snip...
The law that says radio isotopes have always decayed at the same rate?  That's also been emperically shown to not necessarily have always been the case.  And if I'm not mistaken, while I know nothing about string theory, it does have a factor that allows decay rates to possibly change in it.

View Post


Radioactive isotopes have always decayed at the same rate. We can test this by looking af far away stars and measuring the decay rates of elements that we can see in the spectra of the star.

#16 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2006 - 06:52 PM

Radioactive isotopes have always decayed at the same rate.  We can test this by looking af far away stars and measuring the decay rates of elements that we can see in the spectra of the star.


What assumptions are involved in that estimation?

We have measureable evidence here on planet earth that indicates they may not have always been the same.

Evidence for a young earth

Terry

#17 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:03 PM

It's not just starlight I have a problem with, thats just one of my favourite examples of how its very easy to find evidence older than 6000 years.  If the earth is only 6000 years old, you shouldn't be able to do that.


You haven't put any evidence on the table. Only speculation from a certain wordview.

Just as we shouldn't be able to find evidence of pottery and agriculture that can be dated back further than 4000 BC.


You can't test the past. How do you know they are over 6000 years old? Were you there?

There is quite a lot of things we can agree on in physics without having to invoke god, for example, we can agree that General and Special relativity are useful and provide us with good predictions.  From there we can make observations about the world around us, and use science to work out what the most likely explanation for that is.  And the only assumption we have to make is that the universe is deterministic and testable.


I agree completely, but you cannot scientifically test the past. All scientific experiments are performed in the present.

Most likely is in the eye of the beholder....

Terry

#18 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 September 2006 - 06:30 AM

You haven't put any evidence on the table.  Only speculation from a certain wordview.

You can't test the past.  How do you know they are over 6000 years old?  Were you there?

I agree completely, but you cannot scientifically test the past.  All scientific experiments are performed in the present.

Most likely is in the eye of the beholder.... 

Terry

View Post


Its not speculation. There are many different methods of measuring stellar distances. The parallax method is a precise way of measuring distances and is can be used on earth as well as space for measuring how far away an object is.

But don't take my word for it :) ask an expert, http://imagine.gsfc....rs/970415c.html

When we can agree on how far away stars are, we can make even more tests in the present. If a star 166 000 ly away shows decay rates of elements that decay at the same rate here on earth, we can be fairly sure that the decay rate of radioactive elements hasn't changed.

I'm sure you could perform the same kind of experiments 50 years from now and still get the same results.

But if you can't test the past, how do you know any history is true? How can you believe the bible for that matter? Or that Jesus even existed? Can you really write something off just because it has passed out of living memory?

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

#19 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2006 - 05:42 AM

Its not speculation.  There are many different methods of measuring stellar distances.  The parallax method is a precise way of measuring distances and is can be used on earth as well as space for measuring how far away an object is.


I didn't say this was speculation.

When we can agree on how far away stars are, we can make even more tests in the present.  If a star 166 000 ly away shows decay rates of elements that decay at the same rate here on earth, we can be fairly sure that the decay rate of radioactive elements hasn't changed.


This is what you need to explain....

I'm sure you could perform the same kind of experiments 50 years from now and still get the same results.


Means nothing about the past....

But if you can't test the past, how do you know any history is true?  How can you believe the bible for that matter?  Or that Jesus even existed?  Can you really write something off just because it has passed out of living memory?


I didnt' say it was not possible to learn anything about the past, I said that you cannot test the past with the scientific method.

The Gospels are the written records of the life of Chrsit, just as Genesis is the written record about the creation of the universe, and life. Written record are as good as their authors, and God being absolute veracity, is a trustworthy source about how the origin of life.

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."


Exactly! Where were you?????? If you, nor anyone else was there, then its not a matter of science.

Terry

#20 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2006 - 04:57 AM

I didn't say this was speculation.

View Post


My apologies. I thought you were disagreeing with my evidence of things that should not be possible on a 6000 year old earth.


This is what you need to explain....

View Post


Gladly. Check out http://www.aavso.org...sots/0301.shtml

The decay of cobalt-56 matches the decay rate here on earth. Even though the event happend 166,000 years ago.

Means nothing about the past....

View Post


No, you are right, it doesn't, but natural laws do seem to have gone unchanged through out human history wouldn't you agree?

I didnt' say it was not possible to learn anything about the past, I said that you cannot test the past with the scientific method.

The Gospels are the written records of the life of Chrsit, just as Genesis is the written record about the creation of the universe, and life.  Written record are as good as their authors, and God being absolute veracity, is a trustworthy source about how the origin of life.

View Post


Books that were commanded to be written by God, but actually written by fallible men. Who knows what was lost when Constantine did his little bit of editing? How much more was lost after the protestants got to it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users