Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Parish Hall => The Natural Sciences => Topic started by: INPEFESS on June 11, 2017, 11:46:08 AM

Title: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: INPEFESS on June 11, 2017, 11:46:08 AM
My brother (by way of background, majored in physics and mechanical engineering, currently a pilot for United Airlines) and I were discussing a topic that fascinate us: in this case, the apparent conflict between the Scriptural account of creation and modern scientific research. The idea we discussed is not a new idea, I know--indeed, a Protestant friend of mine and I discussed it some time ago--but one that is certainly not given due consideration. Because of my tendency to be verbose, I will present it in the broad, general  terms used by him.

"I was contemplating high speed velocity flight....as in the speed of light and the theory of relativity. What happens if the Bing Bang scientists are right and at the beginning matter accelerated at or higher than the speed of light? In that case the rocks that made up earth could actually be millions of years old with the earth only experiencing 7,000 years of history with humans. It would also explain vast amounts of time passing while only a day passes in Genesis. It would be interesting to run calculations to see what 7,000 years translates in terms of relativity to the millions of years estimated by scientists."

Please feel free to comment on, critique, or expound upon the theory, but only if you truly wish to discuss and exchange ideas, not simply tell others that they are wrong and you are right. If you just want to get on your pedestal and browbeat those who you perceive as less educated than yourself, then your input isn't welcome on my thread. I will just have the moderators shut the thread down.

Thanks KS in advance for your cooperation!
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2017, 02:03:44 PM
Quote from: INPEFESS on June 11, 2017, 11:46:08 AM
"I was contemplating high speed velocity flight....as in the speed of light and the theory of relativity. What happens if the Bing Bang scientists are right and at the beginning matter accelerated at or higher than the speed of light? In that case the rocks that made up earth could actually be millions of years old with the earth only experiencing 7,000 years of history with humans. It would also explain vast amounts of time passing while only a day passes in Genesis. It would be interesting to run calculations to see what 7,000 years translates in terms of relativity to the millions of years estimated by scientists."

The bolded is incorrect. Cosmologists believe that spacetime itself experienced a very, very brief period of extreme expansion at the very beginning of the universe's lifetime, not that matter was moving at speeds at or greater than c (which is impossible since it would require infinite acceleration in a finite time, or infinite time with finite acceleration. Either way that requires infinite energy). But that very brief period of fast expansion is accounted for when cosmologists make estimates for the age of the universe, and even if they had somehow failed to do so there are still distant objects billions of light years away whose light has reached us to this day. That alone precludes a young universe. And radiometric dating of certain rock samples in the Earth's crust preclude a young Earth.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: INPEFESS on June 11, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
By "young earth" is meant "young to humans," but old in time.

That's why it was said, "In that case the rocks that made up earth could actually be millions of years old with the earth only experiencing 7,000 years of history with humans."
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2017, 06:36:42 PM
Human fossils have been discovered that are well over 100,000 years old. Human history is far longer than a literalistic reading of Genesis would allow for.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on June 12, 2017, 12:32:19 PM
1.  Time would indeed pass slower in a strong gravitational field according to relativity, but the magnitude of the field necessary to produce 6 orders of magnitude time dilation would rip the earth completely to shreds.

2.  And regarding rocks, millions of years have passed in the rock's reference frame.  If the rocks are in a high gravitational field, then even more time will pass in a weak gravity field.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: INPEFESS on June 14, 2017, 05:56:41 AM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2017, 06:36:42 PM
Human fossils have been discovered that are well over 100,000 years old. Human history is far longer than a literalistic reading of Genesis would allow for.

Ok then, I guess that settles it.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Sempronius on June 17, 2017, 05:54:19 AM
How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens (http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens)

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2017, 12:06:19 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 17, 2017, 05:54:19 AM
How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens (http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens)

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

Didn't read the article, since I'm on my phone, but scientists are well aware of how contamination can skew radioactive-dating results. But they're easy enough to account for. Also, I highly doubt those rocks are only 10 years old. Even if YECists were correct, the atoms making up these rocks would be thousands of years old.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Maximilian on June 17, 2017, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 17, 2017, 05:54:19 AM
How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens (http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens)

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

Thanks for posting that link.
Very interesting article.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: red solo cup on June 18, 2017, 09:48:15 AM
http://godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on June 18, 2017, 12:12:00 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 17, 2017, 05:54:19 AM
How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens (http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens)

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

So, uh, let me get this straight.  Daughter isotopes present in the lava flows which formed rocks at Mt. St. Helens didn't simply vaporize into thin air when the lava formed into rock.  Therefore, they were detected when these rocks were submitted for radiometric dating, leading to a nonzero age.  And this proves SCIENTISTS ARE LYING about the earth being very old.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Sempronius on June 19, 2017, 08:14:33 AM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2017, 12:06:19 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 17, 2017, 05:54:19 AM
How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens (http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens)

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

Didn't read the article, since I'm on my phone, but scientists are well aware of how contamination can skew radioactive-dating results. But they're easy enough to account for. Also, I highly doubt those rocks are only 10 years old. Even if YECists were correct, the atoms making up these rocks would be thousands of years old.

Here's an article describing how they analized the samples

http://creation.mobi/lavadome (http://creation.mobi/lavadome)
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on June 19, 2017, 09:12:40 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 19, 2017, 08:14:33 AM

Here's an article describing how they analized the samples

http://creation.mobi/lavadome (http://creation.mobi/lavadome)

This is really bad.

All they did was submit samples to a lab for measurements of potassium, argon, and radiogenic argon.  The amount of radiogenic argon was non-zero.  So then they plugged these numbers into the radiometric decay equation to come up with their estimates of age. 

Except in real life, radiometric dating accounts for the possibility of non-zero daughter isotopes at the rock's formation via the use of isochron techniques.  (Which is why they didn't, of course, submit the samples to a lab for K-Ar dating, but only for estimates of K and Ar concentrations, for the isochron technique would have yielded a fail.)
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Sempronius on June 19, 2017, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on June 19, 2017, 09:12:40 AM
Quote from: Sempronius on June 19, 2017, 08:14:33 AM

Here's an article describing how they analized the samples

http://creation.mobi/lavadome (http://creation.mobi/lavadome)

This is really bad.

All they did was submit samples to a lab for measurements of potassium, argon, and radiogenic argon.  The amount of radiogenic argon was non-zero.  So then they plugged these numbers into the radiometric decay equation to come up with their estimates of age. 

Except in real life, radiometric dating accounts for the possibility of non-zero daughter isotopes at the rock's formation via the use of isochron techniques.  (Which is why they didn't, of course, submit the samples to a lab for K-Ar dating, but only for estimates of K and Ar concentrations, for the isochron technique would have yielded a fail.)

Okay I see, I'll gladly read all the arguments and here is a critique of the article

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146 (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146)

So in order to date a rock it must be at least 2 million years old. Okay :rolleyes: If God created the earth couldn't argon excess be higher through the creating power of God? Imagine if he created Mount Everest in 3 minutes. So much energy is being generated then.

Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: 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 (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
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: 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 (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.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: GloriaPatri on June 26, 2017, 11:31:04 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Quaremerepulisti on June 26, 2017, 02:12:15 PM
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. 

Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Kreuzritter on May 10, 2018, 04:31:33 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Xavier on May 10, 2018, 04:56:53 AM
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]
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Kreuzritter on May 10, 2018, 08:01:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: Kreuzritter on May 11, 2018, 12:06:10 PM
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!
Title: Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
Post by: james03 on May 12, 2018, 12:14:49 PM
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.