Author Topic: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth  (Read 2106 times)

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3587
  • Thanked: 1177 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2017, 01:20:38 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.
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2438
  • Thanked: 467 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2017, 01:31:04 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.
 

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3587
  • Thanked: 1177 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2017, 04:12:15 PM »
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. 

« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 04:28:14 PM by Quaremerepulisti »
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 284 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2018, 06:31:33 AM »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Xavier, Blue Violet

Online Xavier

  • Consecrated Slave to Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2203
  • Thanked: 1938 times
  • By Rosary and Scapular, Mary will save the world.
  • Religion: Catholic Christian
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2018, 06:56:53 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/

Quote
Carbon 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]
« Last Edit: May 10, 2018, 07:05:13 AM by Xavier »
Mary, our Heavenly Mother, implores those who receive Holy Communion Daily, or at least Weekly, to Offer their Lives. TEXT OF THE LIFE OFFERING: "My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby Offer my whole Life to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with my life, I place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all Rosaries, all acts of consecration, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the suffering of my entire life for the Adoration and Supplication of the Holy Trinity, for Unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father and Priests, for good Priestly vocations, and for all souls until the end of the world. O my Jesus, please accept my life Sacrifice and my offerings and give me Your grace that I may persevere obediently until my death." Amen. https://www.avemariamaternostra.com/life-offering-promises.html It is recommended that you make this Life Offering as soon as you feel ready, and to renew it from time to time.

Please read the Blessed Mother's promises in the link: those who make it seriously will face no Purgatory (promise 5) since they would have completed it here, will have all their loved ones released from Purgatory the day they offer their life with intent to persevere (promise 4), and can save the souls of all their family members in due time by their life offering (promise 3). It will benefit all souls who have ever lived until time's end (promise 2) A simple effective way for thousands of us to save millions of souls. Inflamed in Large Letters of Love, you will have your name written in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary forever (promise 1).
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 284 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2018, 10:01:30 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Blue Violet

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 284 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2018, 02:06:10 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!
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7817
  • Thanked: 2421 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Theory of Relativity and Young Earth
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2018, 02:14:49 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.
"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."