Theory of Relativity and Young Earth

Started by INPEFESS, June 11, 2017, 11:46:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Sempronius on June 19, 2017, 12:41:02 PM
And here's an article more relating to the OP. How can distant stars reach us if the universe is young?

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

The writer argues that young creationists cannot fully explain distant stars, but the same goes for cosmologs who try to prove big bang. Its all about which agenda you have. If you follow the bible you will develop theories that resonates with your beliefs, if you follow a materialistic view you will do the same

Except that young earth creationists can't even begin to explain distant stars, which is far different from the fact that there are many as yet unanswered questions in standard cosmology, which at least succeeds in beginning to explain things.

Nevertheless, the fact that evidence is interpreted (inferences are made) according to one's presuppositions is absolutely true, and is shown by Bayes' Theorem.

GloriaPatri

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on June 26, 2017, 11:20:38 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 19, 2017, 12:41:02 PM
And here's an article more relating to the OP. How can distant stars reach us if the universe is young?

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

The writer argues that young creationists cannot fully explain distant stars, but the same goes for cosmologs who try to prove big bang. Its all about which agenda you have. If you follow the bible you will develop theories that resonates with your beliefs, if you follow a materialistic view you will do the same

Except that young earth creationists can't even begin to explain distant stars, which is far different from the fact that there are many as yet unanswered questions in standard cosmology, which at least succeeds in beginning to explain things.

Nevertheless, the fact that evidence is interpreted (inferences are made) according to one's presuppositions is absolutely true, and is shown by Bayes' Theorem.

Isn't the bolded only true according to the Bayesian interpretation of probability? The frequentist interpretation of probability seems to hold an opposing view in that probability measures proportion of outcomes, and not degree of belief.

Quaremerepulisti

#17
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 26, 2017, 11:31:04 AM
Isn't the bolded only true according to the Bayesian interpretation of probability? The frequentist interpretation of probability seems to hold an opposing view in that probability measures proportion of outcomes, and not degree of belief.

No.  The frequentist version (definition) of a posterior probability is running the same experiment a gazillion times, separating out the times when you got the same result (data), and looking at the percentage of times a given model was in fact the case; as opposed to a degree of belief in the model. 

But even using a different definition you still have to infer the correctness or not of the model from the data you actually have.

Thus, you still have to use Bayes' Theorem to get from probability of data given model (likelihood) to probability of model given data (posterior probability) which is the inference one is attempting to make, no matter what your interpretation of probability.  Which means prior probability has to enter in.  There's no way around it. 


Kreuzritter

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on June 26, 2017, 11:20:38 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 19, 2017, 12:41:02 PM
And here's an article more relating to the OP. How can distant stars reach us if the universe is young?

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

The writer argues that young creationists cannot fully explain distant stars, but the same goes for cosmologs who try to prove big bang. Its all about which agenda you have. If you follow the bible you will develop theories that resonates with your beliefs, if you follow a materialistic view you will do the same

Except that young earth creationists can't even begin to explain distant stars, which is far different from the fact that there are many as yet unanswered questions in standard cosmology, which at least succeeds in beginning to explain things.

Nevertheless, the fact that evidence is interpreted (inferences are made) according to one's presuppositions is absolutely true, and is shown by Bayes' Theorem.

No, we don't "explain" them NATURALISTICALLY and by means of PHYSICAL MECHANISM, and there is no principle of reason that dictates that we have to. You constantly operate under the hidden premise that at least everything which is material is explicable in such a manner or should be, and must be the product of a mechanistic order described by physical law, a presupposition which you and virtually the entire modern West inherited from Aristotle's in seeing the cosmos as essentially and intelligible machine operating on natural law. At its worst it turns into a physicalist which treats of all phenomena as if they were of physical origin, such as the mind from the brain, and subsequently dimisses  as mere products of the mind - delusions and hallucinations having no objective reality - all phenomena which it cannot explain in themselves by physical science - which is MOST of them. This is pure sophistry.

WHY can't you types get this through your thick skulls? WE DO NOT ACCEPT your metaphysical presuppositions, nor the epistemology through which you attempt to justify yourselves to the exclusion of others. God created the world, ex nihilo by fiat, perfect, fully formed and sensible to humans at a point in time not predating that of history proper, and that world subsequently was cursed and fell into ruin. The attempt to try to reconstruct the past naturalistically is not just based on an unjustifiable presupposition (even within its own epistemology), but is, from the revelation of God, UNTENABLE in the first place due to the metaphysical cataclysm of the Fall. And you have NO basis for calling this view unreasonable, irrational or lacking in foundation. We will not be mocked by (open or crypto under a Christian guise) ideologues of the philosophical religion of metaphysical naturalism - and we REFUSE to debate you on your terms, namely, operating under your own hidden philosophical premises.

Xavier

#19
Oh look, a dome barely 30 years old was dated at, wait for it, 2.8 MILLION YEARS!  ;D I guess that settles once and for all that something known to have happened recently actually happened long ago in our evolutionary past [/sarcasm] http://www.creationism.org/english/msh_lavadome_en.htm

When you use an element with a half life of 1.3 billion years in radioisotope dating, as in Potassium Argon decay, you're already begging the question. It's even worse with uranium lead decay which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Even minutely small differences in measurement of the quantity remaining (you don't know the original quantity, nor can you prove your assumption that the rock was a closed system free from external contaminants during all these alleged millions of years) will lead to dramatic (and meaningless) "millions of years" differences just like dating rocks from a few decades ago to millions of evolutionary years ago.

I'm still waiting for an ardent evolutionist to explain how C14 (radioactive with half life 5730 years) can be remaining in rocks and DNA (has a half life of 521 years after the death of an organism and definitely cannot survive millions of years) can be remaining in fossils; just as with collagen, protein, haemoglobin and soft tissue found in "65-500 million" year fossils. Unlike with your assumptions, I don't need any assumption about original quantity. No matter how much original c14 in the rock or white blood cells in the organism was there originally, the respective substance would certainly have completely decayed by now, if millions of years had really passed. But it has not. That is quod erat demonstrandum with a much higher degree of certainty than your "2.8 million year" 30 year old rocks.

Some documentation below from the Kolbe centre for creation. http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

QuoteCarbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Kreuzritter

With radiometric etc. dating techniques, ignoring the presuppositions of physics as a whole (there are many), several unproven (because unprovable) assumptions are at work. I name a few:

One, that the physical world as it is today is the result of a process of naturalistic evolution and was not created ex nihilo in a particular state which can have led to its current state in any amount of time (to the contrary, it could have been created by God just a second ago to be as it is now, and there is no scientific way to prove that claim wrong) Two, that there has been no cataclysmic change in the world in the recent past, and by that I do not mean simply a physical disaster described by the current laws of physics. Which leads into three, that the metaphysical nature of reality has remained constant into the past - only a minor sub-point here is the oft-mentioned assumption of constancy of physical laws and constants. Let's not even speak of the presumption of knowing initial conditions which depends upon all of these.

Quaremerepulisti, who goes on about "materialism" while implicitly believing most of the same metaphysical premises as them, cannot prove any of these things. He cannot even evidence them without begging the question. The whole point of "historical science" which pretends to be able to reconstruct reality as it was not just in very recent prehistory but tens of millions of years ago is an exercise in mental onanism which is the modern equivalent of turning lead into gold, arguing over angels on a pinhead, or fruity loop discourses of gnostic sects - and perhaps people at a future point in time will generally see it that way, scratching their heads at the "pseudoscientific" nature of it all, though I'm not optimistic.

Kreuzritter

ALL radiometric dating is question-begging when invoked to "disprove us". Namely, it is simply assumed that isotopic ratios etc., that is, the materials present, are where and as they are due to a natural process of decay, from the state and time in which they would have to have been naturally formed in order for this first assumption to be correct. Of course, that assumption is in fact reasonable - when operating under the hidden premise of metaphysical naturalism!

james03

I'm an old earther that also believes in Adam and Eve, 12,000 year human history, etc...  I also have serious doubts about a lot of evolution, mostly convinced by David Berlinski via information theory.

That being said, the young earthers have a point here.  The rock is 10 years old.  You send it to the lab, and the lab says it is millions of years old.  I'm assuming this is due to the trapped daughter isotopes found.  We know that this is false.  Question: does more argon mean older or younger?  I'm assuming younger as the argon permeates out over time.  For long half life material, it could mean older if the argon can't permeate.

Anyhow, when a scientist does a dig and sends in a rock for dating, how can we be confident in the date? 

Note this doesn't prove young earth, it merely questions the reliability of this dating technique.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"