Dinosaurs

[quote=califdadof3;2300478]Dark Energy ( aka Dark Matter ) [quote]

Not correct dark matter apparently makes up about 5% and what is left unexplained about 75% is called dark energy

[quote=paraclete;2300975]Maybe I'm not familier with the term dark energy. Can you enlighten me ?

I confess I have not read the entire thread, so I apologize if that has been covered before. I agree with you that if you could, for the sake of argument, prove that radiometric dating was meaningless, then radiometric dating would tell you nothing at all about the age of fossils or the rock layers they reside in. (But, to be fair, this is like saying that if a measuring stick did not actually measure, then you could not ever find out how tall you were, and that it would then be perfectly fine to claim that you were 6 feet tall.) But let's throw out radiometric dating since you don't like it.

Fortunately, a total lack of radiometric dating would not keep us from being able to see that the Earth is far older than 6500 years. First, nineteenth century scientists estimated things like the rate of erosion and how fast salt accumulates in the oceans to try to estimate the age of the Earth and came up with figures in the range of 20 million to 300 million years. We now know that these figures are off by one or two orders of magnitude, but the question of the age of the Earth was fiercely debated by many very intelligent and sophisticated scientists (who did not have access to radiometric dating techniques), and none of the estimates were in the range you are suggesting.

In addition, as I mentioned before, molecular clock techniques, which are completely unrelated to radiometric dating, give similar numbers to those of radiometric dating, so you could get similar information about the relative ages of different kinds of animals and plants even without radiometric dating. Molecular clocks tell the same story of ancient lineages.

Finally, even absent BOTH molecular clocks or radiometric dating, we would know that dinosaurs lived at a different time from humans. This is because the order in which the fossils appear in the fossil record tells a consistent story of the history of life on Earth.

Before the first vertebrates (animals with backbones) appear in the fossil record, there are no mammals or reptiles. No turtles or frogs, nothing with a backbone. Not until the fish, and then the amphibians, which colonized the land, do you begin to see the first reptiles. And not until the most ancient reptiles appear in the fossil record do you begin to see fossil turtles, early mammals, and, later, the more-advanced reptiles such as dinosaurs and birds.

All of these kinds of life first appear in the fossil record in a particular order. You would no more find a wolf or an elephant in a layer of rock that is lower than the rock containing the first fish than you would find an iPad in an Egyptian tomb.

For this reason, you do not actually need radiometric dating to know that dinosaurs did not live during the Neolithic period of human history. The fact that radiometric dating confirms the story told by the fossil record and molecular clocks merely confirms the same story. It's like having a third witness at a trial. As if the first two were not enough, we have a third who says he saw the same thing. It's very convincing to most people.

Tut,
I think that you have misunderstood my previous post. The two observers are in different frames of reference and "paradoxically" each see the other's clock as running more slowly.

While common sense tells us that only one of the clocks can "actually" be running slower that the other, hence the "paradox", the reality is actually a superposition of the following three states:

1. Clock A is slower than clock B
2. Clock B is slower than clock A
3. Clock A and clock B are running at the same rate.

What happens when we bring the two clocks together to the same frame of reference is to pick out which of the three states above matches the way in which the clocks were brought together, and from that time on reality is limited to only that particular state.

The four ways to bring the clocks back together are

I) accelerate A to the frame of reference of B. This matches state 1.
Ii) accelerate B to the frame of reference of A. This mathces state 2.
Iii) accelerate A and B equally to a common frame of reference. This matches state 3.
Iv) accelerate A and B unequally matches either state 1 or 2 depending upon which has undergone the greater acceleration.

NOTE:

1. No matter which state the clocks end up in, at the time that they were in different frames of reference, all three states "co-existed".

2. Each observer only ever observes one of the states, observer A sees state 2. Observer B sees state 1 so there are no paradoxes for either of them.

3. Technically states 1 and 2 each are a range of states with differing rates of time but I've combined the states with A slower than B together and vice versa to simplify the discussion.

Asking Biology Expert:

Thank you for sharing the reasons why you agree with millions of years. I didn't expect to learn something but I confess I didn't know a few of the things you posted. Just because I don't agree with millions of years doesn't mean I want to be ignorant of the theory. Looks like I need to brush up on it. Shouldn't be hard, there's tons of information out there.

May I ask what specifically your degree is in? I know of a few scientists that if I can possibly get in communication with you, I'd love to observe the conversation. It seems to make sense, at least to me, to try and get someone with a similar degree.

This is just a quick post. I'm still working on my other replies, like that question I asked. Thanks for answering it. I should post more in a few hours.

Elscarta,
Thanks much for that information.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I finally got a chance to sit down and watch this. To be honest, I could have easily concluded that the guy is on drugs. That was one of the lamest defenses of a young universe I've ever seen. He said that, because young-earthers can come up with possible explanations for distant starlight, that means distant starlight doesn't support an old universe. Get real! Suppose one of those "possible explanations" is unicorns? And he himself pointed out that the "possible explanations" he cited are all seriously flawed. He also knows precisely squat about interpreting the Old Testament; he would have done well to study Hebrew and ancient near eastern literature at least as much as he studied astrophysics, because his comments about Genesis 1 are infantile at best.

That's 45 minutes of my life that I'll never get back, and all it did was verify what I already knew: anybody can get a Ph.D. It doesn't mean they actually know anything.

Dwashbur,
LOL...
Thanks for watching that and telling us about it.
You saved me 45 minutes and I thank you for that alone.
I have seen several defenses for the young universe and most are with the used of biblical verses.
A few tried to do so with science that I considered to be bogus and/or lame.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was just going over the posts again while I looked into the topics being brought up. As we get deeper into this, it seems we go less into reasonable arguments and more into heated offenses. I'm not interested in that.

I was building to a point with the first question I asked about origins, and I had more questions but I don't think it's necessary to continue it.

Thank you to those of you that remained respectful for the duration of discussion. I learned a few things. I'm still going to research the topics brought up, but I'm done with this forum.

Thanks for your time.

Lukas:

Just to clarify, I am not a professor but a high school teacher with a Bachelor of Science degree, double major in Physics and Mathematics.

I have listened to the videos of Dr Lisle regarding the distant starlight problem and have many issues with all of his explanations, some philosophical and others scientific. If you are interested I am willing to post them but maybe we should do it in another thread as not to take over this one.

I also am very interested in what problems you perceive with radioactive dating techniques.

You seem to think that "(historical/origins) science" is different from "operational science" in so far as it does "not involve nature or how nature works (in present observation)" and "doesn’t come from empirical observations or really even the scientific method."

Scientific Method
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Empirical
The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment.

If your position is correct then "(historical/origins) science" is just a philosophical debate, not relying on any information other than purely theoretical ideas, but this is not so.

Emprical evidence on the amounts of radioactive isotopes is gathered. Locations of fossils in the geological column are measurable. Looking out into space is observation of what happened in the past.

The Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis and Evolution all use working hypotheses that are testable using observation and experiments.

Experimentally, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at CERN is providing the opportunity to study the conditions of the early universe as proposed by the Big Bang Theory, these experiments are certainly repeatable.

Many experiments have been conducted to see if it is possible to create life in a test tube. (I am not saying that they have succeeded in doing it).

Experiments have been conducted which show how nautral selection and mutations can lead to changes in organisms and the rates at which change in DNA occurs.

Finally I am interested in your opinion of the hypothesis that the Universe may be the ultimate free lunch as described in the following link.
A Universe from Nothing
This is another possible answer to your question:
"What caused the universe to come into existence and where did the original energy or matter come from?"
According to this hypothesis, the Universe "came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity."