Why am I a young earther if all science points to billions of years?

[Silverhair]

The Red Shift? It's the same as the Blue Shift and the Doppler Effect. All observable, testable, and provable. Just the expansion and/or compression of light waves or sound waves between two objects. Such as why does the pitch of a train change to your ear when it is coming towards you and when it passes by you. The Red Shift, in like manner but concerning light waves, proves the Universe is expanding for the hugely most part.

Radioactive decay? In terms of dating objects? I can only speak of what I understand.

It's very real. But misunderstood. Let's take Carbon-14 dating and radioactive decay. Regular carbon that you think of when you see the periodic table is Carbon-12. It has in the center of it as an atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Hence, the 12. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, hence the 14.

Carbon-12 is stable and is of no use for dating. Carbon-14 is UNstable, or radioactive and is used for dating fossils of only things that were once alive. Not rocks or the earth. It takes uranium for that.

It's complicated, but if one can find the ratio of the living creature's C-14 levels and it's own deceased fossil's level of Carbon-14, you could theoretically "date" it.

The problem. Hmmm.....knowing the ancient creature's, such as a T. Rex's Carbon-14 levels when it was alive. I believe that mankind was here with the dinosaurs, but mankind had no special knowledge of Carbon-14 and using it to age things.

So, what to do? Well, using the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere is used. That does seem to be a constant in living things today as living things including plants get their Carbon-14 from eating and breathing.

But the real problem. Problematic enough to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere REALLY a constant?

With the decay of the magnetic field which would affect the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, can we truly prove the constancy of C-14 from the beginning? It's enough of a question TO question C-14 dating.

And then there is the obvious and provable difference in the biosphere before and after the Great Flood. Animals were once HUGE! Now they are not. Something happened, whether you believe in a Great Flood or not to change the biosphere and ergo the amount of C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere.

Those who have "proven" the T. Rex to have been here 65 million years ago, in my opinion, are using questionable ratios in their math problems.

Gotta hand it to those retired teachers, still know how to lay out the relevant information.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Gotta hand it to those retired teachers, still know how to lay out the relevant information.

I learned to do that by teaching science to 7th, 8th, and 9th grade and the Bible to Kindergarteners at church and 6th graders at a Christian school I was at for four years. If people don't understand what you are saying, whether a teacher, preacher, or parent - you might as well be speaking gibberish.

 

[Van]

I read the OP and loved it! The idea that Government manipulators require unproved theories to be taught as facts should result in voting the rascals out.

1) Man-mad global warming caused by burning fossil fuel?

2) The Oort Cloud as the source of long period comets?

3) The age of the earth, based on when it was formed from the pre-solar nebula at about 5 billion years?

4) The wet market as the source of the COVID pandemic.

Can you imagine what kids were taught about mountain formation before plate tectonics?

Science is based on provable theories. Pseudoscience is based on Government mandates to support Communism and Atheism.

 

[Psalty]

The Red Shift? It's the same as the Blue Shift and the Doppler Effect. All observable, testable, and provable. Just the expansion and/or compression of light waves or sound waves between two objects. Such as why does the pitch of a train change to your ear when it is coming towards you and when it passes by you. The Red Shift, in like manner but concerning light waves, proves the Universe is expanding for the hugely most part.

Radioactive decay? In terms of dating objects? I can only speak of what I understand.

It's very real. But misunderstood. Let's take Carbon-14 dating and radioactive decay. Regular carbon that you think of when you see the periodic table is Carbon-12. It has in the center of it as an atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Hence, the 12. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, hence the 14.

Carbon-12 is stable and is of no use for dating. Carbon-14 is UNstable, or radioactive and is used for dating fossils of only things that were once alive. Not rocks or the earth. It takes uranium for that.

It's complicated, but if one can find the ratio of the living creature's C-14 levels and it's own deceased fossil's level of Carbon-14, you could theoretically "date" it.

The problem. Hmmm.....knowing the ancient creature's, such as a T. Rex's Carbon-14 levels when it was alive. I believe that mankind was here with the dinosaurs, but mankind had no special knowledge of Carbon-14 and using it to age things.

So, what to do? Well, using the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere is used. That does seem to be a constant in living things today as living things including plants get their Carbon-14 from eating and breathing.

But the real problem. Problematic enough to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere REALLY a constant?

With the decay of the magnetic field which would affect the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, can we truly prove the constancy of C-14 from the beginning? It's enough of a question TO question C-14 dating.

And then there is the obvious and provable difference in the biosphere before and after the Great Flood. Animals were once HUGE! Now they are not. Something happened, whether you believe in a Great Flood or not to change the biosphere and ergo the amount of C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere.

Those who have "proven" the T. Rex to have been here 65 million years ago, in my opinion, are using questionable ratios in their math problems.

Just 2 things on this,… and Im not your enemy on this stuff, just fyi!

1. If you calculate rate of expansion with red shift… you get a much older age than 10k years old for earth.

2. Radioactive decay. As Christians, we sound bad when most of us as non-scientists say that they are wrong in the fields they work in. We are literally making assertions that they are fundamentally wrong on their formulas, data, science and calculations.

While it may be true that they are off, you have to SHOW it. I have heard a christian dentist who is against evolution argue that all of these things are wrong, but without evidence, we just aound like nay-sayers.

Do any of you know Christian scientists that have debunked Radioactive Dating on a scientific level?

 

[DaveXR650]

While it may be true that they are off, you have to SHOW it. I have heard a christian dentist who is against evolution argue that all of these things are wrong, but without evidence, we just aound like nay-sayers.

You have a point. But this is just the nature of the differences, isn't it? The scientific theories start with a proposition, for instance that something degrades, or decays at a certain rate, or that something like a continent moving or erosion occurring continues at that rate and thus calculations can be made based upon those facts. In the later years of the evolution-creation debate in the US, when they were arguing in courts whether school systems should teach creation along side evolution this was the argument evolutionists used. That is, they claimed that science is what science does, and therefore creation science cannot be real, and even if it was true, it simply is not science.

In a sense they were making the same point you are making. Even if God did instantaneously create everything 6000 years ago there would be no way to prove that using human science. And they have a point.
Science, and especially evolutionary science starts with the assumption that no supernatural influence is involved. That is why evolutionary scientists reserve their most severe criticism for those who talk of "intelligent design".

So, what you say above, that if they are off you have to show it, is an impossible task. It would be like telling us that if we are going to say that one rose from the dead, in a body dying from abuse and trauma and loss of blood and being kept at normal temperature for days then we have to show it scientifically. And of course that is exactly what they do, all the while knowing that if we can't then they think they have won, and if we do, then it wasn't supernatural after all. Personally, I like all things "science" and see some merit to their argument. I would just add that science should learn where to stop and confine itself to a human study of the physical realm. They jumped into religion and they blur the two, in my opinion.

 

[Deacon]

I would just add that science should learn where to stop and confine itself to a human study of the physical realm. They jumped into religion and they blur the two, in my opinion.

Nice post, but you're personifying science - science isn't a person or people. Science is the study of the physical world and its phenomena.
Science and Theology should agree, we're studying the world God created.
Including God in science deals with the philosophy of science, rather than pure science (which precludes God).

That's where some of the criticism against intelligent design arises. Sometimes the intelligent design position is used instead of further research, since the answer often is "Gosh, God did it, isn't he amazing."

The topic of Creation must be discussed in its relation to theology, cosmology, or metaphysics. Ideas expressed within these are most often theoretical.
Scarlett's initial post where she writes about the "Ort cloud" for example, deals with theoretical science [interesting though, is that the Voyager probes have only recently provided us with some data on the far stretches of our galaxy that begin to provide some physical data.]

Rob

 

[Ascetic X]

That's where some of the criticism against intelligent design arises. Sometimes the intelligent design position is used instead of further research, since the answer often is "Gosh, God did it, isn't he amazing."



Rob

Why would intelligent design cause investigation to stop, with “God did it, isn’t He amazing?”? The identification of the source of phenomena does not explain the inner workings of them.

Intelligent design states that God is the first cause and director, rather than spontaneous autonomous random processes with no ultimate aim in view.

A secular scientist could just as easily say, “Evolution did it, isn’t evolution amazing?” and stop researching a phenomenon.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Just 2 things on this,… and Im not your enemy on this stuff, just fyi!

1. If you calculate rate of expansion with red shift… you get a much older age than 10k years old for earth.

2. Radioactive decay. As Christians, we sound bad when most of us as non-scientists say that they are wrong in the fields they work in. We are literally making assertions that they are fundamentally wrong on their formulas, data, science and calculations.

While it may be true that they are off, you have to SHOW it. I have heard a christian dentist who is against evolution argue that all of these things are wrong, but without evidence, we just aound like nay-sayers.

Do any of you know Christian scientists that have debunked Radioactive Dating on a scientific level?a

Thanks for asking for clarification on the matter.

I have the raw data from the research by Dr. Millard Libby that was used as a proof of carbon dating. I should have put it in the other post, but I thought it would be too long.

It's QUITE food for thought. It might even be called jaw-dropping what it DID prove.

Dr. Libby worked on the Manhattan Project and continued after the fact working on radioactivity. His ideas of using C-14 to date fossils is interesting, but his numbers, even to his own admission are off. I'll show you all that. He used the research anyway, was highly published, and was given the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Nobel Prize? Must be true and provable then, right? I understand that there are Christian nay-sayers. Christians, scientists, parents, students, and the public in general believe FAR too much of what they hear. No one wants to prove anymore. They just want to give proof-texts.

It's going to take me a while today to gather that up and make it not be 18 pages!!!

 

[DaveXR650]

Intelligent design states that God is the first cause and director, rather than spontaneous autonomous random processes with no ultimate aim in view.

Right. And is proposes that using only science, not appealing to the work of God, there are irreducible complexities that render it impossible for this or that to evolve - based on the criteria that evolutionists have themselves set up. That being that for evolution to occur there must be a change that benefits the organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a superior way that the new genetic makeup becomes predominate.

For example, one might say that the lightening bug can signal for mating purposes and thus the behavior and structure we see has evolved to the benefit of the creature. But then one might point out that there are 8 pages of organic chemistry reactions occurring to cause the light, there are 20 more mutations giving the creature the ability to control the light, and there are 20 more mutations to give the creatures the ability to know the meaning of the lighting for purposes of mating. Intelligent design simply says that none of that helps the poor bug until all is in place. You can appeal to time and chance, and you may get away with it when describing how a moth changed color over time because of their habitat changing, or the thickness of a finch beak changed to adapt to a certain common seed on an isolated island, but they struggle to apply this to the complexity of mutational change that has to occur, simultaneously, for evolution to be the sole driving force for all the plant and animal kingdom.

As we learn more and more about what is occurring at the cellular level, if you notice the evolutionists still use the small change micro-evolution, because that is probably true. Unless you try to apply that as an explanation for all of creation - which is by definition, what they have to do. So, I would say the beauty of intelligent design is that it simply says "You want science, fine. Now let's really look at what you are claiming and explain what we now know, beyond pea pods and moth colors, and then ask if nothing but time and chance, along with environmental pressure can truly account for all we see."