How old is the earth

How about two. These are useful for identifying Cambrian fossils.

Paradoxides pinus
Billingsella corrugata

 

I believe the "problems" with dating refered to by Helen and quoted by BobRyan are well known and compensated for by geologists. For example, Plaisted makes a big point about argon moving around. ("Then a lot of Ar40 enters, uniformly, through cracks in the rock or heating.") Problem is, argon is much less likely to move around than he needs and is likely to absorb on the surface of the mineral rather than be incorporated into it. This can be taken care of. Rather than tit-for-tat this, let me just give the following links. I find reading the back and forth of both sides to generally be very enlightening.

Helen already gave the link to Plaisted's original analysis.

Here is a direct response to that article.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html

Here are comments from Plaisted on that particular analysis.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review2.html

Here is a response from Plaisted to the comments to his comments in the above link.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review3.html

Read it all. You decide. Now if there were just a Fox report on this for us to watch.

 

"Regarding your other remarks concerning any slow-down effect in the speed of light discussion, the values which you are using are totally hopeless. You really are not understanding what is happening."

Then I look forward to your return. I can patiently wait a few weeks. I am not sure I am using any actual examples to be "totally hopeless" other than general assumptions for discussion. The main point I make is that the changing speed of light makes some predictions that things will appear to be in slow motion. Indeed it depends on this to make distant atomic process appear to operate at the same rate they do today. Other process should be subject to the same slowing. If they are not atomic processes, they would have been running at normal speed and the slowing would cause them to appear to be going too slowly. I choose eclipsing binaries as my example of choice because it is easy to see how they are purely a gravitational system, obviously operating on "orbital time," and their orbits cannot be affected by changes in atomic processes. Therefore we should observe a slowing effect.

When you get back, please explain to me in detail where I am misunderstanding. You have used that on me for a long time but have not explained it to remove the misunderstanding. From what you said, I can gather part of what you say I am misunderstanding. So, I will bring out my example from our previous trip down this lane. When you return, tell me at what speed a photon reaching the earth from SN1987A was traveling relative to current light speed when it left. I maintain that the average speed would have to be at least (170,000 / 6000 = 28.3) 30 times the speed of light and that the intial speed would be required to be considerably higher than that. Do the same for Sagittarius A* while you are at it, please.

 

This problem for Setterfield CDK theory is not new. He has been challenged to show ANYTHING running slower due to light speed slowing for years now and nothing has been shown yet. Instead, everything seems to run at the same speed at all distances, including all gravitationally controlled events, such as the rate stars orbit the center of galaxies.

Galactic rotation rates are easily measured at vast distances.

 

Once we have the velocity of a photon from Sagittarius A* arriving now, we can see what effect that has on observations such as the link below of stars orbiting the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. We have observed a star, S2, that orbits so close to the black hole as to only complete an orbit in 15 years. We know the mass of the star and its distance from the black hole over a wide part of its orbit. From this, we calculate the mass of the black hole. It is in agreement with other measurements. If faster speed of light made this star orbit much quicker than what is observed, then the calculated mass is way off and no longer agrees with other estimates. And the light must have been going faster to have reached us in less than 6000 years.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s702556.htm

 

It would appear this particular observation is, indeed, especially problematic for Setterfield CDK theory. But a thought: Could Setterfield claim that the assumption of flat rate light speed merely changes the assumed observed mass for the central black hole of the galaxy? Would this assumption have systematically altered ALL the observational determinations of the central black hole mass?

 

I did think about that. I will have to look into the other methods by which the size is calculated. It is a possibility. The other half would be to get an answer on how much the observation has been slowed and turn that into a new mass to see how far off it would be. Doing that for an elliptical orbit may be beyond my capabilities though. I do not know how much that complicates things. Maybe none at all.

 

For Uteotw:

I've been thinking about a problem for Setterfield CDK that most people will be totally unable to even understand and I thot I'd run it by you, to see what you think.

As you know, Setterfield claims CDK to change at key moments on a simultaneous basis throughout the universe.

Einstein's theory of relativity denies there is such a thing as true simultanity available for physical consideration, but Setterfield claims that the Cosmic Background Radiation determines a space time viewpoint that objectively defines a point of reference for determining what simultaneous means in his theory.

In this simultaneous mode, all light, propagating at speed xc, can change suddenly to c without any untoward effects.

And Setterfield maintains this change does not affect the wave length of the light.

But the idea of what is simultaneous for one state of motion is, as you know, definately not simultaneous for a body in an alternate state of motion. The earth and our galaxy, for example, are moving at hundreds of kilometers per second towards something termed the "great attractor".

Therefore, for earth, anything that is simultaneous with reference to the background radiation over the whole universe will be perceived as a set of events that form a great, infinite plane sweeping across the universe far faster than light, but not "infinitely fast" as if it all occurred simultaneously. For particles in our atom smashers moving at near light speed, the apparent "motion" of the "change plane" would be even slower.

As the "change plane" sweeps across the universe, necessarily some radiation will be passing through it - or perhaps it through the radiation - at an angle rather than directly head on.

This raises the issue of refraction. Any time a light wave goes through a medium at one speed and emerges at another, there must be both (a) a change in the direction of the light ray and (b) a change in the wavelength of the light ray. Otherwise, the waves do not match up crest to crest on both sides of the transition plane. It is the matching up of the waves that moves the light waves along, of course.

Both these changes, mandated by the wave nature of light, are forbidden in Setterfield physics, which makes Setterfield physics physically impossible.

Indeed, as long as Einstein's Theory remains valid (and we both know it has passed every possible test to date) this result would seem to preclude any change in light speed whatsoever! With the possible exception of the very beginning of the universe, when the refraction problem would seem to have no space in which to arise, and as space is newly created, there being no previous space in which to refract from.

What do you think of these musings?

 

Index Fossils continue to be scandalized.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having shown that evolution rests primarily on myths and bad science "guesswork" - the question remains - how can Christians toss out the Word of God as "false" and cling to the myths and fables of evolution without trashing the Gospel and opening the doors to the moral relativism that we see invading the Anglican church today in the news?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Its a mystery to me...

Mike

 

O Bob!

First, when you give a quote such as that, could you please give a reference to where you got it? It helps me track down what you are saying and I would think it a courtesy to the author if you choose to quote him verbatim.

Here we go with Dr. Snelling again. He is as much fun as the RATE group. I have mentioned above how the "problems" you try to present with dating are well known to geologist and they know how to properly identify, collect, prepare, and analyze samples to get good work. Snelling is an example of a trained geologist using this knowledge to get bad samples.

A few years ago, Snelling did this same trick with some "fossil wood" from somewhere else, Australia I think. When the lab that did the analysis was contacted, they said the sample he submitted "wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample." I don't think that ever made it into the report! A quick look into the literature would have shown that geologists are well aware that iron concentrations in rocks will give false dates if you try and date them. He either did not know that part or ignored it, either of which invalidates his conclusions. Besides, he will not submit his work to peer review to let experts in the field see if he did anything incorrectly and he will not let anyone see the actual samples. Hiding something? Now, he follows that up with another sample of "fossilzed wood" from another area known to containe deposits of iron oxides. Let's just say I don't trust his track record in this area.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who

But this uncovers a further misunderstanding about the way science is done. There are probably millions and millions of pieces of data to show an old earth, an old universe, and evolution. YECers seem to think that if they can get just one anomaly to stick, they can overturn all of science. (Look how you always try to debate me. We never stay on one topic for long. You object, I correct, and then you try again, hoping something will stick.) But anomalies are expected. Why do you think scientists takes statistics? It gives the tools needed to seperate the real data from the outliers. You focus on the few outliers rather than the wealth of data counter to your position and choose to deny the logical reasons why the outliers are just that. Look at this example. Geologists know that certain things can cause wrong dates. They know why they cause wrong dates. They know how to avoid the problem by being careful with thier samples. Then a YECer comes along, takes advantage of it without giving the part about we already know why that does not work. As a personal example, I think we do pretty good research where I work. It's coal gasification, so nothing you would be opposed to. But you could come through with this kind of attitude and "prove" that we have not produced a single good data point. But we have been doing this for a while and know how to notice when a particular data stream is good and when it is not good. We know how to analyze the data to pull what we need out from the noise. We know how to tell if something is real or an anomaly. So do all scientists.

 

Still waiting for any evidence for a young earth.

Still waiting on any evidence that science depends on "myths," "bad science," and "guesswork."

Paul, I'll have to think a little bit on your musings.

 

I'm still waiting for absolute evidence of billions of years.

Good science doesn't depend on "myths." "bad science" or "guesswork. ONLY theories depend on these and theories are not absolute.

 

So, A Christian, what do you personally think about seeing light from galaxies so distant that the light travel time must be billions of years?

 

A_Christian

There is a wealth of information from many varied fields that all point to an old earth, an old universe, and evolution. You can only deny the evidence as you have been completely unable to show any problems with the evidence. You cannot show any part of science to be a "myth." You cannot show any part of science to be "guesswork." And you cannot show that this is "bad science."

You deny the evidence without any logical or evidentary reason to do so. You are also unable to present anything that actually indicates a young earth, that actually indicates a young universe, or that actually shows created kinds.

You want "absolute" evidence? I am not sure what I could give you "absolute" evidence for in any field, related to the discussion or not. Pretty convincing... We have done that.

I can give you pictures of galaxies billions of light years away. That light took billions of years to get here and records a history of that object. The primordial pieces of the solar system we can find always date to 4.55 billions of years old. The oldest parts of the earth date to about 4 billion years old. The earth shows a history of billions of years of geology.

The fossil record shows that only certain species have lived at certain times and that some species are likely descendants of other species. You will never find a human fossil with a dinosaur fossil as a standard example. There are millions of such examples.

The tree of life can be arranged into a nested heirarchy by morphology. Not only that, but you can get the same nested heirarchy using genetics. This is known as the twin nested heirarchy. It even works for basic cellular proteins that have nothing to do with morphology.

The genes encode very specific copying errors that are found in related species because of common descent. See the single, common mutation that disables vitamin C production in all primates, including humans.

The genes record where retroviruses have placed a specific string of DNA in a specific place of its host and this has been passed down to the descendents. This can be used to build a family tree for the apes, including humans, showing when the common ancestors split off by comparing which modern apes have which pieces of virus DNA and how much it has mutated.

On a wider scale, we can use the mutation rates to show when various species had common ancestors. And we can back it up with fossil finds. Two seperate ways of finding the evidence and dates that agree with one another.

We have many millions of years worth of ocean spreading recorded in the Atlantic Ocean including the evidence of periodic flips of the earth's magnetic field. We have hundreds of thousands of years worth of ice layers in Greenland and the Antartic.

I can keep going for pages, but why? You deny all this and more. But you cannot show any problems with any of this nor can you offer an alternative explanation. The evidence is overwhelming. Only you deny it.

 

The light arrived before ther were any stars. The speed of light depends on GOD for its rate of speed and not visa versa.

 

The ONLY thing that science has demonstrated, is that the Universe is unfathomably complex in a simplistic way or unimaginably simplistic in a complicated way. In either case nature is an enigma. That is exactly what GOD is. GOD is loving, GOD is jealous, GOD is understanding, GOD is righteous, GOD is just, GOD hates sin, God became sin for us...

 

I presented you a long list of things that show an old earth. A list that only scratches the surface. Can you not present an alternative that better explains the data? Can you not show us logically and factually that the conclusions are wrong? Can you not show us logically and factually that the universe is indeed young? Can you only deny?

"The light arrived before ther were any stars."

What!

Light was created in transit, you say? The history the light records never happened! The structures, colliding galaxies for example, that would take millions or billions of years to give their current shape are not real? All that is a fake!

Do you just as easily deny the biological evidence shown you? The geological? All these things are fake?

Now that is an enigma. Wrapped in a mystery.

Sorry for the sarcastic tone.