[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=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 Im not familier with the term dark energy. Can you enlighten me ?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Caldera
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Caldera
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."
Elscarta,
One problem I have had with the current definition of "scientific method" is that it appears to eliminate history as a genuine science. Since that's more or less my bailiwick, I find that a little unsettling :eek: I'd be very interested in your view about history as a science.
Thanks for that summary of scientific and empirical method!
[QUOTE=califdadof3;2300978]Perhaps this will help youQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Dark Energy, Dark Matter — NASA Science
[QUOTE=paraclete;2301772]Thanks that cleared it up. I guess I never saw it referred to seperatly like that before. Nice link.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
elscarta,
That is interesting.
Thanks,
Peace and kindness,
Fred
To the extent that history can be proven by scientific method, but so much of history is perspective, the conquerer's perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I know the question was directed at Elscarta, but I will put my 2cents worth in.
I would see history as not being a 'genuine' science, but attempting to employ the scientific method nonetheless. This is what the social sciences do.
It seems to me that science employs a limited of number of methodologies and sticks to them while the social sciences employs a variety of methodologies, which can still be regarded as empirical.
By this I mean there is an attempt at 'objectivity' when interpreting historical events. Paraclete is right when he indicates that it is easier to be 'more' objective when you are on the winning side.
However, as Karl Popper would point out when it comes to science in general we would be looking to falsify rather than verify the facts. As far as history is concerned this would mean that the 'facts' are subject to constant revision.
Tut
[QUOTE=paraclete;2301772]Fascinating stuff. I'm just going to toss this out for consideration based on that article.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
A long time ago, but not in a galaxy far, far away, a former friend of mine came up with a working hypothesis about dark matter and such, and what constitutes the "stuff" that fills the void between observable objects and groups of objects.
His answer: God.
A God who is intimately involved with his universe, maintaining it, sustaining it, but still materially separate from it (thus avoiding the pitfalls of process theology).
Thoughts?
[QUOTE=dwashbur;2302775]Didn't I say that earlier, seems we both have the same ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
[QUOTE=paraclete;2303084]Indeed you did. Sorry, I missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Do you feel like expanding that thought a little?
No one has seen a live dinosaur so we have no reference point for dinosaurs in recent times but there are tales of dragons in antiquity. Could these dragons have been dinosaurs? And if they existed then dinosaurs could have been on the Earth 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs are found in very remote places, could there be any significance in that? There are many questions about what changes the flood would have brought and dinosaurs have to be put in this context. Dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate and the inaccuracy increases as the fossil gets older. Many strange things have been found including dinosaur bones with meat on them and mastidons with a mouth full of grass. What this tells us is the Earth is subject to sudden and catastrophic change about which we know little but the likelihood we have been here for much longer than 6,000 years is very slender indeed. Look at what we have managed to do in 6,000 years and ask yourself where would this have lead if we had been here for millions of yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Triund
Some interesting possibilities
There have been many extinction events and we managed to survive them all despite being stupid and taking a long time to develop
Mankind is the most unintelligent creature on the planet
Mankind is a superior lifeform that has unique survival abilities
A few hundred migrants from Africa just happened to populate the planet but it took millions of years for the population to grow to this level
The dinosaurs ate all the humans this is why it took so long for the human population to grow
The humans ate all thedinosaurs this is why they are extinct
Hi Paraclete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Most of these issue were discussed in previous posts.
Are you suggesting that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old but humans and dinosaurs have only been around for about 6,000 years?
Regards
Tut
I am not concerned with what might have been said previously in this or any other place, I am answering a question.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
What I am saying, Tut, is there are two different stories/opinions/theories and a big vacuum in the middle. We have an explanation for having being here six thousand years and a great deal of the evidence fits the narrative. On the other hand certain forms of measurement suggest that the underlying strata of the Earth might have been here a very long time. These facts are not necessarily inconsistent. One also has to examine the logic associated with the information presented and this leads to some inconsistencies which don't support the old Earth, or at least the old human, theory. The most consistent concise explanation we have is Biblical, a little short on detail, but very consistent with many observations and explanations.
We also have some conundrums, things to puzzle over, because they don't quite fit in the ordered view we would all like to have. The more we seek, the more we find that our explanations have to be modified and revised, so therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence I have opted to stay with the Biblical explanation.
Hello paraclete,
Thanks for the explanation; just curious.
Regards
Tut
I would be very interested to have you explain how an explanation that says the Earth is 6000 years old is not mutually exclusive with one that says it is 4.5 billion years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Here I am not sure what you are referring to. The evidence for the Earth's age is quite consistent. There is no disagreement within the scientific community about it. How can the Bible be considered more consistent than that? As for concision, Genesis is certainly not a more concise account of the age of the Earth than a Wikipedia entry on scientific explanation of the same topic. The Bible is much more poetic but not more concise or consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
dwashbur, I agree with your friend and that also includes dark energy.
God is present everywhere and everywhen and nothing is impossible for Him.
So He could have created the universe just 6000 0r 7000 years ago, but I think that he did not do so.
I think He created the universe to eventually become what we see of it today billions of years ago.
It's just a matter of belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
You do know Adam and Eve is just a story right? I am very catholic but I was even taught in my classes/studies that it is just a story. Adm and Eve were most likely never on this earth
kowcow44,
It is believed by many theologians that the story of Adam and Eve is a informative poem. The basic story is about a man and woman falling into sin and about how they did that.
Basically that is by disobeying God.
The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are symbolic according to that.
Either way a person wants to believe it there are lessons to be learned by such a story.
Mankind has a sinful nature and that story tells us how we acquired that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Please don't get me wrong I am not trying to say that there is not multiple good messages to be taken away from Adam and Eve and the other stories such as Noah's ark and The Tower of Babel and so on it just seemed to me like the question was being based on a belief that Adam and Eve actually walked this earth at a certain point in time and the dinosaurs could not have existed before thenQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
kowcow44,
I agree that there there were a symbolic Adam and Eve who wlked this planet long after the dinos were dead and gone.
Thanks for your explanation.
Fred
Could you please provide specific information regarding this as it is not the first time that the idea that dating techniques are inaccurate has come up. Without specific details you are asking us to accept your word that this is true without being able to look at the validity of the claim for ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Fred I disagree that "it's just a matter of belief."Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
John 17:20-23
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves regarding things like how the universe was created?
Even if we respectfully agree to disagree, where is the complete unity that Jesus prayed for?
elscarta, You have made a very good point.
Thanks,
Fred
I like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Also, it seems odd to say that something is "just" a matter of belief. As an atheist, I think that belief is not a basis for deciding how the world was made. Though I believe other things--for example, that it is wrong to be unkind to children. But it seems to me that for someone who believes in God, belief is everything. Have I misunderstood?
asking,
Yes, I do believe that belief is everything, but maybe not in the way you think of it.
I believe that you can not do anything without some form of belief.
As an example...
If you believe you can feed yourself then you can.
There is an old saying that fits this.
"If you believe you can or if your believe you can not either way you are right."
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Hello Asking,
Interesting problem. I could be the case what we 'discover' morality differently to the way we 'discover' scientific facts. Most people would agree that we need to discover morality in an objective way, it is just that some want to say we need to discover these things in a scientific way. In other words, science and morality exist independently of us, yet they are discoverable in a similar way.
A moralist realist would say that we can discover objective facts about morality by thinking about our actions and the actions of others. There seems to be a problem here. How can something that arises out of the mind have the same type of objectivity as scientific objectivity?
Elscarta, highlighted this problem when he says:" How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves, regarding things like how the universe was created"
We can discover things scientifically and these things may not sit comfortably with the beliefs of some. On the other hand, some moral beliefs don't sit comfortably with a scientific explanation.
No answers, just observations.
Regards
Tut
Hi Tut,
We think differently. But there are some commonalities.
I think that, to a degree, morality is a rational process. It is a bad idea to steal in part because if I steal from my neighbor, he will eventually feel justified in stealing from me. If instead all of us follow certain social rules, everyone benefits--no one gets killed or robbed.
At the same time, it's clear that some people benefit by breaking those rules. So they can justify their behavior as rational. For example, if they expect not to get caught or not be punished.
But I would still say it is wrong to steal, and that's a strong, not very rational belief. Some animal species steal from one another and others don't, so I think whether a species has those inclinations depends on how they evolved. For example, birds that steal food from other animals are nearly all large birds, with large brains, who live in open habitat--like gulls at the beach--and not so different from another species I know. :)
So I think that science can offer insights into morality. But how I feel about morality is not scientific or rational. It makes me angry when the gull at the beach steals my sandwich!
TUT317,
I agree with your way of thinking on this.
I also think that God DOES give us the ability to discover morality in many ways.
I do not believe that animals like birds, bears, and lions can know what morality is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
There are three ways in which people respond to the situation where science discovers something that does not sit comfortably with their beliefs:Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
1. Hold on to their beliefs and reject the scientific discovery.
2. Assimilate the new scientific discovery into their beliefs.
3. Forgo their beliefs in favour of the scientific discovery.
Creationists' default position is #1. (Actually this is their only position!).
In my many dealings with creationists I have realised that there are a number of reasons for this.
Firstly, there is a fundamental flaw in their logical process which leads them to outrightly rejecting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
Below is their argument paraphrased.
i. Scripture is the Word of God -> Scripture is Truth
ii. The Universe is the Work of God -> The Universe is Truth
iii. Science is man's attempt to understand the Universe and since it is based on imperfect man it can be flawed.
iv. Therefore any science that agrees with Scripture is good science and
v. Any science that disagrees with Scripture is bad science.
Now the flaw is not in any of these statements (I agree with the logic to this point) but in their equating their beliefs with Scripture!
The missing statement which must be added to the above is:
vi. Theology is man's attempt to understand Scripture and since it is based on imperfect man it can be flawed.
Good science does not contradict Scripture but it certainly can contradict bad theology!
Secondly, they accept atheists' arguments that if there is no need for God then God does not exist and so reject anything that appears to lessen the need for a God.
God's existence does NOT depend on whether there is a need for Him to exist or not, or even whether anyone believes in Him or not! Nothing man says, does or believes in any way changes the reality of God's existence/non existence!
Thirdly, they accept the logic of atheists' proofs of God's non existence and then argue the contrapositive instead of realising that the logic is false
Atheists' argument:-
If "__________is true" then "God does not exist".
Creationists' argument (contrapositive):-
"God exists", therefore "_________ is not true".
Instead of arguing:-
"God does not exist" does not logically follow from "_________ being true."
Fourthly, they seem to prefer supernatural explanations over natural explanations, forgetting that God is as much the God of the natural as He is of the supernatural.
Agreed. In my case, I knew 1 wouldn't work. 3 wasn't an acceptable option for reasons I'll go into in a moment. Hence, I wound up at 2. Once I realized the poetic nature of Genesis 1, I had no problem seeing these "days" as a kind of creative "act," pushing things along the way God wanted them to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Many years ago I came close to losing my faith altogether, for reasons that aren't relevant here. I had to stop and reexamine everything with a fresh perspective, and I realized that it's not that important to know WHAT I believe; it's even more important, perhaps most important, to know WHY. That's why I'm on pretty solid ground now; I managed to sort out what's most important to believe, and why I believe it. I narrowed it down to two things: God exists, and Jesus rose from the dead. The former is pretty much a requirement regardless of what philosophical or scientific system one holds, because no matter how far back one presses cosmology, at some point they're going to end up with Aristotle's Uncaused Cause. Sooner or later, we have to hit that point. I decided to choose sooner and get it over with. The latter is a matter of historical investigation. Guided largely by my old friend Gary Habermas, I learned that there are certain facts surrounding the event that almost everyone agrees on, as well as a limited number of explanations for that body of facts. When we take the facts all together, only one answer explains all of them: it really happened.
Hence, an old universe doesn't give me any problem at all. As I've mentioned before, I tried to hold on to the young universe and flood geology and all that, until I got into astronomy. When I realized that I was seeing the Andromeda Galaxy as it actually was 2.5 million years ago, that was the final straw. And none of the explanations I've heard, including that absurd Lisle talk that somebody posted here, has changed my mind. If anything, that talk showed me how far some people will go to try and defend bad exegesis.
Now, Dr. Lisle did mention one thing that makes me curious, and I'd be interested in the view of the scientists and anyone else who have been participating in this discussion. He said, though he didn't give a reference, that astronomers have now reported that the observable universe, the part we can see, measures roughly 170 billion light years across. That is, we can see approximately 85 billion light years in one direction and the same in the other direction. (I'm rounding because I don't recall the exact numbers he cited.) His question: how can that be if the universe is only 15 billion years old? How can we see things 85 billion light-years away if they've only been there for 15 billion years?
It's a good question, unless he (and I) grossly misunderstood something. What do you folks think?
The observable universe is around 13.7 Billion Light Years in any direction from earth. This means we can "see" galaxies and other things that are as far away as 13.7 billion LY. That's what we can see. But the universe may in fact today be much larger than that - 156 Billion LY is one estimate. How can this be? It's because space itself expands, so that if two objects were one LY apart as measured back shortly after the Big Bang they would now be much further apart than that. So when we see an object that today we calculate sent light toward us 13.7 billion years ago, that object today may be as far as 157 bilion light years. The thing to remember is that we aren't actually seeing these objects as they are today, but rather as they were 13.7 billion years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Here's an article that talk about this effect:
SPACE.com -- Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!
I wonder - when Dr Lisle pulls writes this stuff is it because he is too anxious to talk about things he hasn't bothered to truly understand, or is he purposely trying to mislead? It must be one or the other.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:58 PM. |