Evolution and Young Earth Creation Science

[CosmosGP]

"According to the big bang idea, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old; whereas the Bible indicates that the universe is about 6,000 years old. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be sufficient reason to reject the big bang."

The Scientific answer to this is on page 4 of the post "Prove to me that space expands" The cosmological model is a bit different but it is totally valid and acceptible "scientifically" and so far it has not been proven false. If you have a valid rebuttle that does not require an unfounded belief in the cosmological principle then I would surely like to hear it! Otherwise this example of how galaxies and the CMB can be 14 billion light years away and the earth can still be only 6000 years old Is equally valid and as scientifically provable as the BB with the predetermined bias of the cosmological principle.

Please provide a valid rebuttle if you can? (It must be objective and unbiased and based on our observable universe!

[Van Rijn]

The Scientific answer to this is on page 4 of the post "Prove to me that space expands" The cosmological model is a bit different but it is totally valid and acceptible "scientifically" and so far it has not been proven false. If you have a valid rebuttle that does not require an unfounded belief in the cosmological principle then I would surely like to hear it! Otherwise this example of how galaxies and the CMB can be 14 billion light years away and the earth can still be only 6000 years old Is equally valid and as scientifically provable as the BB with the predetermined bias of the cosmological principle.

Please provide a valid rebuttle if you can? (It must be objective and unbiased and based on our observable universe!

Your idea is inconsistent with many lines of geological and astronomical evidence. Six thousand years is a ridiculously short period. Evidence shows that the Earth itself formed about four and a half billion years ago, and we're receiving light that has been on the go for far longer than that.

[CodeSlinger]

Your idea is inconsistent with many lines of geological and astronomical evidence. Six thousand years is a ridiculously short period. Evidence shows that the Earth itself formed about four and a half billion years ago, and we're receiving light that has been on the go for far longer than that.

Exactly.

TalkOrigins.org has some great info on the various evidence we have for Earth being much older than 6000 years old. Just type "site:talkorigins.org evidence old earth" (without the quotes) or something similar into Google and check out the results. This is the first result I got back.

[CosmosGP]

It may not be popular or comfortable but with time dilation from relative motion it proves that it is mathamatically & scientifically posssible. I'm not saying it definately happened that way, just that it is a viable possibility and it cannot (objectively and without bias) be proven false. Argue with the math, it works!

Another example is carbon dating; the half life of carbon 14 is so short that it should not even be dectectable in anything over 15,000 years old, yet we find carbon in all organic material, So something is wrong with the dating methods used. Carbon 14 dating really says that nothing can be older than 15,000 years old, including coal, deep rock diamonds and oil.

[CosmosGP]

Also , where are the missing Super Nova Remnants, there are not even close to the correct amount for a universe that is 14 Billion years old.

[CodeSlinger]

It may not be popular or comfortable but with time dilation from relative motion it proves that it is mathamatically & scientifically posssible. I'm not saying it definately happened that way, just that it is a viable possibility and it cannot (objectively and without bias) be proven false. Argue with the math, it works!

No, the math doesn't work. Why don't you take a look at the responses from worzel and others in that other thread?

Another example is carbon dating; the half life of carbon 14 is so short that it should not even be dectectable in anything over 15,000 years old, yet we find carbon in all organic material, So something is wrong with the dating methods used. Carbon 14 dating really says that nothing can be older than 15,000 years old, including coal, deep rock diamonds and oil.

From TalkOrigin's Radiometric Dating FAQ:

This statement was as untrue when it was first written in 1973 (117, 1973 ed., p. 35) as it is today. Modern counting instruments, available for more than two decades, are capable of counting the 14C activity in a sample as old as 35,000 years in an ordinary laboratory, and as old as 50,000 years in laboratories constructed with special shielding against cosmic radiation. New techniques using accelerators and highly sensitive mass spectrometers, now in the experimental stage, have pushed these limits back to 70,000 or 80,000 years and may extend them beyond 100,000 years in the near future.

Also , where are the missing Super Nova Remnants, there are not even close to the correct amount for a universe that is 14 Billion years old.

Go read TalkOrigin's Supernovae and YEC FAQ.

For someone who allegedly does not support YEC, you sure are familiar with their favorite arguments. If you want to advocate it, go try it in ATM. If you really are just curious whether one of their arguments holds water, take advantage of Google and TalkOrigins. To find out info about YEC argument X, simply type into Google "site:talkorigins.org X". That's how I found the two FAQ's above.

No, I'm not interested in playing the game where you post one crappy YEC argument after another, and I have to respond to each by googling up info for you.

[Van Rijn]

It may not be popular or comfortable but with time dilation from relative motion it proves that it is mathamatically & scientifically posssible.

No, it does not. As previously noted, the Earth is far older than that based on many lines of geological evidence, and if we fired off a spaceship from Earth 6,000 years ago at .99999999 C, we would see it at 5,999.99994 light years distant today. We would also see it highly red-shifted, yet we don't see that for objects in the local universe.

Another example is carbon dating; the half life of carbon 14 is so short that it should not even be dectectable in anything over 15,000 years old, yet we find carbon in all organic material, So something is wrong with the dating
methods used.

Or it's more complex than you'd like. And, of course, carbon 14 is only relevant for relatively near term dating. There are many lines of evidence for the age of the Earth. You might want to study some basic geology.

[Ronald Brak]

Another example is carbon dating; the half life of carbon 14 is so short that it should not even be dectectable in anything over 15,000 years old, yet we find carbon in all organic material, So something is wrong with the dating methods used. Carbon 14 dating really says that nothing can be older than 15,000 years old, including coal, deep rock diamonds and oil.

You don't understand carbon dating. Here is an overview of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

And here is a simple short explanation:

An extremely small amount of carbon in the air is carbon 14 that is made by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. Plants absorb this carbon 14 and use it in the same way as normal carbon. When the plant dies, it stops absorbing carbon from the air. Unlike normal carbon, carbon 14 is unstable and will slowly start to decay. Its half-life is 5,730 years. This means that after that period of time half of it will be gone. After 11,460 year three quaters of it will be gone and so on. By measuring how much carbon 14 is left it is possible to tell approximately how old organic matter is. Since some carbon 14 still remains, it is possible to to date remains that are older than 15,000 years. In practice, the older remains are, the harder it is to date them accurately, the maximum age datable with modern carbon 14 dating techniques being 65,000 to 80,000 years.

[CosmosGP]

Quote
No, the math doesn't work. Why don't you take a look at the responses from worzel and others in that other thread?

Quote
No, it does not. As previously noted, the Earth is far older than that based on many lines of geological evidence, and if we fired off a spaceship from Earth 6,000 years ago at .99999999 C, we would see it at 5,999.99994 light years distant today. We would also see it highly red-shifted, yet we don't see that for objects in the local universe


My rebuttle,
Worzel and others did not prove it false or say the math does not work. they merely disagreed with the model and theory (that is totally acceptable). In fact they proved their point in stating that the math does work, in fact it works for may different coordinates (Thanks guys! for your objective knowledge) I learn a lot from these guys!

Time dilation from relative motion is in effect in this model, your math is wrong if you don't use the equation for time dilation. (please read the whole post)

Yes! I know we can quibble about pet arguments, but your ground is just as shakey as mine:

Missing mass, 10% fact 90% Hope or faith. Also, neutrinos ( if they have mass) are only approx. 4% of the missing mass, Dark matter and energy (good theory) but not factual yet.


CMB, a perfect black body, no temperature fluctuations were even found when they first looked for them. 1/100,000 of a degree difference? C'mon guys we have trouble measuring to that accuracy on earth let alone 14 billion light years away? I'm not saying it's wrong but it is definately suspect. ( especially since it trashes our current cosmological model if it does not exist!)

Super voids discovered; an empty hole in space 1 billion light years across with nothing in it, just empty space. (Lawrence Rudnick, Discover Mag.) Look at a slice of sky from sloans survey, the mass of galaxies is thinner near the CMB, it is not random. (It is not because galaxies are so dim we can not see them, we can see them).

Yadda yadda.... etc... etc.....

My point is astronomers talk like they have it all figured out and the other side has no factual evidence. When in reality I see just as much (if not more!) evidence going against the main stream. I am not trying to sway anyone to believe anything but I insist that we stay totally objective and unbiased or astronomy will become a joke to real science! Our theory's must be supported by what we see in our visible universe.


There is more than 1 choice for a model and they seem equally valid to me!

[CodeSlinger]

My point is astronomers talk like they have it all figured out and the other side has no factual evidence.

*snip*

There is more than 1 choice for a model and they seem equally valid to me!

Please clarify. What is the "other side" or other model choice you have in mind? Young-Earth Creationism?

[CosmosGP]

Young-Earth Creationism can be applied to the model I suggested, but my point is that the "other side" is any other model that does not start out with the bias of the cosmological principle. If you start with the notion that the earth or Milky way galaxy cannot be preferred or special you must take a predetermined path and make predetermined interpretations of the observable universe. Your conclusions have to be biased based on your starting point! I admit that the basis is logical and the most accepted but it totally eliminates other possible conclusions that you could arrive at if you were objective to start with. So what! if the earth was special or preffered, if science is equally valid going in this direction then it is an equally valid model. It is not "wrong" just because it does not agree with the cosmological principle. I say start with a totally objective mind and let science take you wherever it wants to go! I see it going against the mainstream view. You can see whatever you want! but please don't say I am wrong just because I didn't start out with your specific bias!

The math proves this is viable, argue with the math.
The model is viable but not comfortable and equally as valid as the BB cosmology.

We are all on shakey ground.

[CosmosGP]

"A mind is a terrible thing!" Bubba Smith, Saturday night Live 1982. Ha Ha!

*Snip* *Snip* I like that!

[parallaxicality]

Isn't it somewhat preposterous that out of all the quintillions of planets in the universe, ours would just happen to be the one to receive such special treatment?

[CodeSlinger]

Worzel and others did not prove it false or say the math does not work. they merely disagreed with the model and theory (that is totally acceptable). In fact they proved their point in stating that the math does work, in fact it works for may different coordinates

What worzel said is that given objects X and Y, you can make X appear to be 6000 years old by supposing it is moving at the right speed relative to object Y. But object Y's clock would still show that over 13 billion years have passed. So your math does not show that the universe or the Earth is only 6000 years old, because there's still a clock somewhere where over 13 billion years have passed.

Missing mass, 10% fact 90% Hope or faith. Also, neutrinos ( if they have mass) are only approx. 4% of the missing mass, Dark matter and energy (good theory) but not factual yet.

Red herring. We have many lines of evidence for the universe and the Earth being more than 6000 years old, many of which have nothing to do with dark energy or dark matter. For example, the radiological dating methods, which I noticed you've decided to not talk about any more.

CMB, a perfect black body, no temperature fluctuations were even found when they first looked for them. 1/100,000 of a degree difference? C'mon guys we have trouble measuring to that accuracy on earth let alone 14 billion light years away? I'm not saying it's wrong but it is definately suspect. ( especially since it trashes our current cosmological model if it does not exist!)

I believe it's 1 part in 100,000, not 1/100,000 of a degree. And we are measuring the radiation as it is detected here on Earth, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say we have to measure it 14 billion light years away. In any case, just because you have a hard time believing scientists can measure something so precisely, doesn't mean they can't; this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

Super voids discovered; an empty hole in space 1 billion light years across with nothing in it, just empty space. (Lawrence Rudnick, Discover Mag.)

Which does nothing to prove that everything is only 6000 years old, or that we are somehow at the center of the universe.

Look at a slice of sky from sloans survey, the mass of galaxies is thinner near the CMB, it is not random.

This is just flat out wrong, as crosscountry already told you in the other thread.

The simple fact is that we have mountains of evidence (much of which does not depend on the cosmological principle) against the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old and we are at the center or some otherwise unique place in the universe. If you want to argue that your pseudo-YEC model is just as valid as mainstream cosmology, start a new thread in ATM. This has no business in Q&A (see the rules of the forum).

[Gillianren]

My point is astronomers talk like they have it all figured out and the other side has no factual evidence.

Wrong. Astronomers are perfectly aware that there's quite a lot they haven't figured out. That's what science is for--figuring out more stuff. And that's where YEC, ID, and whatnot fall down. There is conclusive evidence that they're wrong; YEC has been shown wrong for hundreds of years. However you may attempt to date the Earth cosmologically, people wandering over fields and mountains 200 years ago worked out that it had to be older than 6000 years. As the state of science got better (because it does), the estimates of the age got more specific. As more work was done, the evidence against YEC and ID and any other belief based on one book and not scientific evidence piled up and up and up.

In short, no, science doesn't think it has it all figured out. Yes, "the other side" in a debate about evolution has no factual evidence. That you think it has indicated that you haven't read that much on the subject.

[CosmosGP]

Yes, it is preposterous but that still dosn't mean that it is not possible. Evolutionists bet on the odds of slim chance happening throughout their whole theory, I'm just leaving it open that it could happen.

Then Worzel did not understand my word problem. This is where I could be wrong but I don't think that I am. If you know an expert in relativity please have them read this and tell me if the following word problem is wrong. If I'm wrong (I want to know).

2 Objects moving away from each other. One object is static (the earth) the other is a space ship moving away from earth at under light speed. The space ship travels for 6000 years ( on the space ships time clock), people on the earth see that it has traveled 13.2 billion light years distance from the earth in that time. How fast did it have to go to get there? (Using the equation "time dilation from relative motion) the answer is .9999999999999 % light speed, that's (13 9's) . This is completely within the laws of physics.
Only 6000 years of actual time took place on the space ship but the people on earth see the galaxy 13.2 billion light years away from us. From the spaceships reference frame only 6000 years of time has to pass for us (on earth)to percieve that their spaceship is 13.2 billion light years away. From the spaceships reference frame, their 6000 years at near light speed is equivalent to our 13.2 billion light years. Thats why we can see the galaxy that far away, it is not because it actually took 13.2 billion light years for it to get there. So I still believe I am correct.
I agree that time is relative to speed but this also shows that the universe does not have to be as old as you percieve it to be from your reference frame.

I know the super void does not prove we are at the center of the universe (that was not my intention. My point was that it does not support the popular BB model. The popular model might be wrong according to this discovery. Our cuurent view of how the universe formed does not allow for voids of that size, it is not random.

[CosmosGP]

I want to know the whole answer to everything! is that too much to ask! Ha Ha!

[Disinfo Agent]

Well, do you expect to get it all at once?

[Van Rijn]

Time dilation from relative motion is in effect in this model, your math is wrong if you don't use the equation for time dilation. (please read the whole post)

Wrong, time dilation doesn't help your argument. It doesn't matter how close to the speed of light you fire off an object from the Earth's surface - if you fired it off 6000 years ago, you will not see it more than 6000 light years distant from the Earth's surface. Yet, we see many objects much further away, but not red-shifted. And, the evidence shows that the Earth itself is far older than that.

Your argument is flawed. It does not match observations.

[captain swoop]

We don't need to look at objects billions of light years away to know the age of the earth! this is a huge red herring!

[CodeSlinger]

Yes, it is preposterous but that still dosn't mean that it is not possible. Evolutionists bet on the odds of slim chance happening throughout their whole theory, I'm just leaving it open that it could happen.

Maybe the universe was really created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes, it is preposterous, but that doesn't mean it is not possible, right? But I would hope that you do not think this is as valid a model as Big Bang cosmology.

What slim chances do you think evolutionists bet on? The odds of a specific change might be slim. But the process of evolution is observed to be happening constantly, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

2 Objects moving away from each other. One object is static (the earth) the other is a galaxy or space ship moving away from earth at under light speed. The galaxy travels for 6000 years (on earths time clock), people on earth see that it has traveled 13.2 billion light years distance from the earth in that time. How fast did it have to go to get there? (Using the equation "time dilation from relative motion) the answer is .9999999999999 % light speed, that's (13 9's) . This is completely within the laws of physics.

Your word problem is wrong. An object that appears to us to be traveling at c only travels 1 light-year per year (the very definition of a light-year). If we observe a galaxy to have traveled 13.2 billion light-years in 6000 years, then its average speed must appear to us to be 2,200,000 times c.

I know the super void does not prove we are at the center of the universe (that was not my intention. My point was that it does not support the popular BB model. The popular model might be wrong according to this discovery. Our cuurent view of how the universe formed does not allow for voids of that size, it is not random.

This statement does not show that Big Bang cosmology is wrong, it shows that your understanding of Big Bang cosmology is wrong.

I want to know the whole answer to everything! is that too much to ask!

If you really do want to learn, then stop getting your science from YEC sites.

[Noclevername]

Isn't it somewhat preposterous that out of all the quintillions of planets in the universe, ours would just happen to be the one to receive such special treatment?

1. What makes you think ours is the only one?
2.What makes you think it's "special treatment", as opposed to just applications of existing universally-consistent physics?

EDIT: D'oh, I think I took your question out of context. That'll teach me to read the rest of the thread first! (In reality, it probably won't teach me that.)

Where's the control to put a line through those words?

[CosmosGP]

Wow! you answered fast!

I appologize I was in a hurry and did not write the problem correctly. I have corrected it. Please read it again and respond. Thanks!

My BAD!

[Van Rijn]

Looking at the modified argument . . .

2 Objects moving away from each other. One object is static (the earth) the other is a space ship moving away from earth at under light speed. The space ship travels for 6000 years ( on the space ships time clock), people on the earth see that it has traveled 13.2 billion light years distance from the earth in that time.

So, in this example, about 13.2 billion years have passed on Earth while the ship has been in flight. Not exactly a young Earth . . . .

[Delvo]

What do far-away galaxies have to do with determining the age of the Earth? Even without radiometric dating, we have tree ring records covering the last 9,000 years without a break. We have another continuous tree ring record spanning 12,000 years before that species became extinct. We have rock formations with up to 4,000,000 annually-deposited layers (and ending sometime long before the present, since they're not all exactly at the bottom of a lake now). We have mineral deposits made by erosion from the hills directly upstream which are made of rocks of known toughness that would have taken millions of years to erode that much. We have caves made by dissolution of minerals in water, of minerals whose solubility is known to be low enough that creating caves of such size would have taken millions of years. We have rock formations, and evolved but still similar & related flora and fauna, showing past unity of certain parts of now-separate continents with matching shoreline shapes which only move at a rate that would have taken dozens of millions of years for the spaces between them to open as wide as they are now. We have protein and DNA mutation rates and measured amounts of difference in such chemicals between species, showing that it would have taken into the low hundreds of millions of years for the given amounts of difference to accumulate.

Even if we were to agree on the silly notion that radiometric dating didn't count, it would still make no sense to bother with any astrological theory of how the Earth could be younger than the evidence right here on Earth itself says it is.

[CodeSlinger]

Looking at the modified argument . . .

2 Objects moving away from each other. One object is static (the earth) the other is a space ship moving away from earth at under light speed. The space ship travels for 6000 years ( on the space ships time clock), people on the earth see that it has traveled 13.2 billion light years distance from the earth in that time.

So, in this example, a bit more than 13.2 billion years have passed on Earth while the ship has been in flight. Not exactly a young Earth . . . .

Exactly.

I agree that time is relative to speed but this also shows that the universe does not have to be as old as you percieve it to be from your reference frame.

If a clock in a reference frame has ticked out 13.2 billion years, then the universe must be at least 13.2 billion years old, because otherwise the clock could not have ticked out the amount of time it did.

[Gillianren]

I want to know the whole answer to everything! is that too much to ask! Ha Ha!

Probably. Science is all about increasing what we know; there's no certainty, and a lot of reason to doubt, that we will ever reach the limit of what there is to be learned.

[clint]

What do far-away galaxies have to do with determining the age of the Earth? Even without radiometric dating, we have tree ring records covering the last 9,000 years without a break. We have another continuous tree ring record spanning 12,000 years before that species became extinct. We have rock formations with up to 4,000,000 annually-deposited layers (and ending sometime long before the present, since they're not all exactly at the bottom of a lake now). We have mineral deposits made by erosion from the hills directly upstream which are made of rocks of known toughness that would have taken millions of years to erode that much. We have caves made by dissolution of minerals in water, of minerals whose solubility is known to be low enough that creating caves of such size would have taken millions of years. We have rock formations, and evolved but still similar & related flora and fauna, showing past unity of certain parts of now-separate continents with matching shoreline shapes which only move at a rate that would have taken dozens of millions of years for the spaces between them to open as wide as they are now. We have protein and DNA mutation rates and measured amounts of difference in such chemicals between species, showing that it would have taken into the low hundreds of millions of years for the given amounts of difference to accumulate.

Even if we were to agree on the silly notion that radiometric dating didn't count, it would still make no sense to bother with any astrological theory of how the Earth could be younger than the evidence right here on Earth itself says it is.

Thanks for this summary, Delvo!
I hadn't thought of tree rings, I wonder how YEC would explain that

At the end of the day, it always comes down to what I said before:
current scientific estimates about the age of the Earth have evolved over a long time,
based on many independent lines of observable evidence,
and precisely NOT taking anything for granted.

ID/YEC is based on one ancient text. Any evidence to the contrary is disregarded.

So who's biased here?

[EvilEye]

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6...parisonyy5.gif

(This is a very nice animated gif showing the planets and the sun, comparing their sizes. However, at over 1mb, I think it should be cold linked out of respect for those with non-T1 connections.)

[lek]

Ok, so real time is "6000 years", "real" universe looks very "blue" in one direction and very "red" the opposite direction. So "reality" is everything, including the magic observer going almost at c is flying really really fast in some arbitrary direction.

Meanwhile, us on planet earth are seeing none of that, and everything we study shows the age of earth and universe very much different than 6000 years.
We see the rest of the universe fly away from us, which can mean we are actually the center of the universe, or space is expanding and this observation isn't unique to us, but such observation would be the same everywhere in the universe.

And all this somehow adds up to "earth is 6000 years old AND center of the universe?"