Evolution

[greatkraw]

Just pointing out to you that even the Creation scientists seem to steer clear of the arguments you are putting forward.

Yes I know the difference between orbital and atomic time I actually have done work in precision timing a couple of years ago and operating Caesium clocks, fun stuff.

Barry Setterfield's theory predicts that we will keep having to add more leap seconds yearly to keep the clocks in step

 

[MahogonySnail]

It could go either way, one year they may have to remove a second. I hope you know the leap seconds thing has nothing to do with the speed of light but the earth's rotation rate. The problem is as you know, the atomic clocks are too accurate. There's talk to remove leap seconds but there are legal issues some countries have a legal requirement that civil time be based on astronomical time. But our time system is not based upon pure astronomical time anyway and hasn't been like that since the 70's?? I forget.

 

[MahogonySnail]

This website explains some of the flaws in Setterfields and others, arguments re: speed of light.

http://www.fsteiger.com/light.html

 

[greatkraw]

It could go either way, one year they may have to remove a second. I hope you know the leap seconds thing has nothing to do with the speed of light but the earth's rotation rate. The problem is as you know, the atomic clocks are too accurate. There's talk to remove leap seconds but there are legal issues some countries have a legal requirement that civil time be based on astronomical time. But our time system is not based upon pure astronomical time anyway and hasn't been like that since the 70's?? I forget.

but his is the problem

the earth revolves around the sun

but each year fewer atomic seconds tic by as it happens

 

[MahogonySnail]

Yes because the revolution of the earth around the sun is changing as is the rotation of the earth on its own axis. The speed of light remains constant, however. And it's not in the order of "each year" , "fewer atomic seconds tic by". It's miniscule. The atomic clocks are more stable than the rotation of the earth around the sun and on its axis, that is the problem. It's nothing to do with the atomic clock stability or speed of light.

 

[greatkraw]

yes i no they are microseconds(or some fraction) and it is good that we now have clocks accurate enough to pick up the changes

as I said one atomic clock also differs from another because of altitude and time dilation

orbital(macro time) and atomic(micro time) are not in sync

ie they are changing relative to each other - which has astounding implications regarding what we believe about the universe

 

[MahogonySnail]

You're talking about differences on the order of nanonseconds or less there. And you know that the clocks aren't actually running faster or slower, they are only apparently running faster or slower depending upon where the observer is. The important thing related to this discussion to realise is - that the speed of light remains a constant c throughout.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

can you enlighten me on the ways you beleive it is flawed and your views on those who beleive in that way

It's very simple, really. If God were to use the standard formula for evolution, that means He'd be using different animals at different times, through many centuries, as "lab rats" to form other animals, and in turn the human race. This would make Him cruel and wasteful, not to mention dishonest (since Genesis claims that man was made during the first week of Creation, not a few million or billion years in). The whole "thousand years is a day" reference only occurs twice in Scripture, and neither of those passages have anything to do with evolution or Creation; they are simply used to express that God is not bound by linear time, as we are.


Plus, there's also the irritating fact that no physical evidence has ever been found to support the notion that extremely massive genetic changes occur in any animal, only minor variations. For example, you have poodles, beagles, and collies....but they're all dogs. Humans are unique among all God;s creatures, and the reason we have similar DNA to apes is because we have a common Creator, not a common ancestor.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

The problem with Carbon-14 dating.
1. Carbon-14 represents one trillionth of all carbon.
2. A two hundred pound man's skeleton weighs twenty-eight pounds.
3. less than 15% of the bones weight is carbon, 4.2 pounds
4. Carbon-14 in a man's skeleton=4.2/1,000,000,000,000
5. Carbon-14 half life is 5,730 years.
Problem=amount of carbon-14 becomes unmeasurably small in three to four half-lives (20,000 years tops)
Other problems: Assumption of uniformitatianism regarding the level of carbon-14 in atmosphere.

 

[greatkraw]

You're talking about differences on the order of nanonseconds or less there. And you know that the clocks aren't actually running faster or slower, they are only apparently running faster or slower depending upon where the observer is. The important thing related to this discussion to realise is - that the speed of light remains a constant c throughout.

well that is the question

i figured out leap seconds are a red herring

 

[greatkraw]

The problem with Carbon-14 dating.
1. Carbon-14 represents one trillionth of all carbon.
2. A two hundred pound man's skeleton weighs twenty-eight pounds.
3. less than 15% of the bones weight is carbon, 4.2 pounds
4. Carbon-14 in a man's skeleton=4.2/1,000,000,000,000
5. Carbon-14 half life is 5,730 years.
Problem=amount of carbon-14 becomes unmeasurably small in three to four half-lives (20,000 years tops)
Other problems: Assumption of uniformitatianism regarding the level of carbon-14 in atmosphere.[/quote]

that is right it is based on the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has reached equilibrium

it has been calculated that this would take tens of thousands of years to occur

it is assumed that those tens of thoussands of years have aleady passed

 

[MahogonySnail]

well that is the question

i figured out leap seconds are a red herring

What do you mean by "red herring" ? The speed of light is not changing here , neither is the atomic clock frequency. In fact all the relativistic experiments are conducted using a fixed speed of light c. I suppose they could re-express the formulas in terms of constant time and varying speed of light, but there's no evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum changes in fact there are ways to know that the speed of light is still the same today as it was last year.

 

[MahogonySnail]

The problem with Carbon-14 dating.
1. Carbon-14 represents one trillionth of all carbon.
2. A two hundred pound man's skeleton weighs twenty-eight pounds.
3. less than 15% of the bones weight is carbon, 4.2 pounds
4. Carbon-14 in a man's skeleton=4.2/1,000,000,000,000
5. Carbon-14 half life is 5,730 years.
Problem=amount of carbon-14 becomes unmeasurably small in three to four half-lives (20,000 years tops)
Other problems: Assumption of uniformitatianism regarding the level of carbon-14 in atmosphere.

That's a moot point because if you know anything about radiometric dating you'd know they only use C14 for dating archaelogical objects etc up to 70,000 years , not for determining the age of rocks beyond that.

 

[greatkraw]

That's a moot point because if you know anything about radiometric dating you'd know they only use C14 for dating archaelogical objects etc up to 70,000 years , not for determining the age of rocks beyond that.

you still havent told me what you have to say about polystrat fossils

 

[MahogonySnail]

I don't know about polystrate fossils what about them?

 

[charisenexcelcis]

The problem with Carbon-14 dating.
1. Carbon-14 represents one trillionth of all carbon.
2. A two hundred pound man's skeleton weighs twenty-eight pounds.
3. less than 15% of the bones weight is carbon, 4.2 pounds
4. Carbon-14 in a man's skeleton=4.2/1,000,000,000,000
5. Carbon-14 half life is 5,730 years.
Problem=amount of carbon-14 becomes unmeasurably small in three to four half-lives (20,000 years tops)
Other problems: Assumption of uniformitatianism regarding the level of carbon-14 in atmosphere.[/quote]

that is right it is based on the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has reached equilibrium

it has been calculated that this would take tens of thousands of years to occur

it is assumed that those tens of thoussands of years have aleady passed

Also, since Carbon-14 is created in the atmosphere, right after creation there would have been less Carbon-14 in the bones, giving artificially "old" readings.
Finally, the atmosphere that would have been neccesary for the models presented for abiogenesis would have inhibited the creation of Carbon-14.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Very good, now explain the flaws in some other methods that are actually used to prove an old earth.

 

[SeekSolace]

Using the observable to determine "truth" as opposed to "reality" is likely a waste of time if you subscribe to the latest research in quantum physics. Quantum science appears to show that reality is an illusion influenced by the observer...in other words there is not "world" or "universe" or "reality" absent an observer. Call it the Schrödinger's Cat " phenomena.

Under this theory, billions of human beings can affect reality to change reality. Who knows if it's true (although the effect has been testable, observable, and to a degree measureable). That would mean the earth would be flat if most people believed it was, or the Sun would go around the Earth...it would also mean all of reality could be the work of a supremely powerful being.

I throw this out to see how all the folks who think "science" disproves the existence of God respond. My bet is they pick and choose the science they believe based on the science they want to believe. Since quantum physics is cutting edge science, I find it interesting to see how people locked to 19th century science respond.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Science has never disproven God.

I don't know why christians are allergic to science when it concerns dating rocks or things like this, but if they are sick and need a doctor the first thing they rely upon is medical science and accept whatever the doctor (atheist, christian or not) tells them. But the same processes which have given us modern science apply to both medical and geological/natural sciences...so why accept one and reject the other, it only smacks of hypocrisy.

I have a reasonably well thought out and researched answer to the reason why our earth is dated to millions+ of years old that would rival any arguments put forward by creation scientists with their theories on the speed of light speeding up and slowing down just enough to prove their theory that the earth is only 6000 years old : When God created the earth 6000 years ago, He used really old dirt.

 

[SeekSolace]

I know of very few Christians who are "allergic" to science. I know I number (and count myself among them) who react to the straw man arguments that assume if you are a Christian you must be opposed to science. Science, and scientists for that matter, who remain objective and go where the evidence leads them are fine. Even those who ascribe to a different worldview are fine if they acknowledge the underlying problems with their assumptions. For instance, if a scientist says "I believe" that geologic dating is correct, but acknowledge there are issues that prevent it from being conclusive I know they're honest and their belief's are honestly arrived at. It is science that has been corrupted to serve an agenda that troubles me, whether evolution, human caused global warming, or holes in the ozone layer. You are absolutely right...science cannot disprove the existence of God, but it doesn't prevent some scientists from trying. Judging from some posts, they've succeeded with a number of folks. The very fact that Christians continue to believe in God is seen as evidence that they don't accept science, hence your statement "Christians are allergic..." Not even "some Christians," which I could at least have acknowledged.

Also I sometimes get frustrated by the leaps of logic that people will make. At least Christians acknowledge an element of faith. All human knowledge is fallible.

"But the same processes which have given us modern science apply to both medical and geological/natural sciences...so why accept one and reject the other, it only smacks of hypocrisy. " Science hasn't been a straight-line march to truth...it is replete with blind alley's, and wrong-headed notions. For anyone who "believes" in medical science should sign a waiver promising not to sue if a new wonder drug of science has some drastic health impact 20 years down the road. And anyone who "believes" in any other aspect of science should always be prepared for a new revelation that turns their beliefs on their heads. And for all the people who assume intellectual superiority because of a "belief" in science should recognize that it is always wise to maintain a degree of skepticism towards any science that refuses to acknowledge its limitations or refuses to discount its own biases. That skepticism represents the "open mind" that Christians are so often accused of not having.

The charge of hypocrisy is misused. Everyone decides where to put their faith. Some put there faith in the perishable and fallible (science). Some put there faith in the imperishable and infallible (God). The science faithful acts like science is infallible and true, but should know better and acknowledge science gets it wrong sometimes and they merely have faith that continued revelation will eventually prove their worldview correct. Christians believe their worldview is based on something infallible and true, but are required to seek continuing revelation to better understand that truth. They also have faith that in the fullness of time their worldview will prove correct. Both are faith-based. Christians see the science-faithed as spiritually blind, and the science faithed see Christians as intellectually stupid.

Christianity and science should have this in common...the search for truth. Neither faith should accept current science as the final word on any subject because man's knowledge is limited.