Time & Space

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Z

zoii

Banned
#41
Apr 8, 2015
895
18
0
#41
MadeInGodsImage said:
Here's something i'd like to share which I found on the internet. It's quite long but it's some useful information -

Radiometric dating was the culminating factor that led to the belief in billions of years for earth history. However, radiometric dating methods are not the only uniformitarian methods. Any radiometric dating model or other uniformitarian dating method can and does have problems, as referenced before. All uniformitarian dating methods require assumptions for extrapolating present-day processes back into the past. The assumptions related to radiometric dating can be seen in these questions:

Initial amounts?
Was any parent amount added?
Was any daughter amount added?
Was any parent amount removed?
Was any daughter amount removed?
Has the rate of decay changed?

If the assumptions are truly accurate, then uniformitarian dates should agree with radiometric dating across the board for the same event. However, radiometric dates often disagree with one another and with dates obtained from other uniformitarian dating methods for the age of the earth, such as the influx of salts into the ocean, the rate of decay of the earth’s magnetic field, and the growth rate of human population.16

The late Dr. Henry Morris compiled a list of 68 uniformitarian estimates for the age of the earth by Christian and secular sources.17 The current accepted age of the earth is about 4.54 billion years based on radiometric dating of a group of meteorites,18 so keep this in mind when viewing table 6.

Table 6. Uniformitarian Estimates Other than Radiometric Dating Estimates for Earth’s Age Compiled by Morris

0 – 10,000 years >10,000 – 100,000 years >100,000 – 1 million years >1 million – 500 million years >500 million – 4 billion years >4 billion – 5 billion years

Number of uniformitarian methods* 23 10 11 23 0 0 (respectively to each year range)

* When a range of ages is given, the maximum age was used to be generous to the evolutionists. In one case, the date was uncertain so it was not used in this tally, so the total estimates used were 67. A few on the list had reference to Saturn, the sun, etc., but since biblically the earth is older than these, dates related to them were used.

As you can see from table 6, uniformitarian maximum ages for the earth obtained from other methods are nowhere near the 4.5 billion years estimated by radiometric dating; of the other methods, only two calculated dates were as much as 500 million years.

The results from some radiometric dating methods completely undermine those from the other radiometric methods. One such example is carbon-14 (14C) dating. As long as an organism is alive, it takes in 14C and 12C from the atmosphere; however, when it dies, the carbon intake stops. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on samples that were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today.

Now, 14C has a derived half-life of 5,730 years, so the 14C in organic material supposedly 100,000 years old should all essentially have decayed into nitrogen.19 Some things, such as wood trapped in lava flows, said to be millions of years old by other radiometric dating methods, still have 14C in them.20 If the items were really millions of years old, then they shouldn’t have any traces of 14C. Coal and diamonds, which are found in or sandwiched between rock layers allegedly millions of years old, have been shown to have 14C ages of only tens of thousands of years.21 So which date, if any, is correct? The diamonds or coal can’t be millions of years old if they have any traces of 14C still in them. This shows that these dating methods are completely unreliable and indicates that the presumed assumptions in the methods are erroneous.

Similar kinds of problems are seen in the case of potassium-argon dating, which has been considered one of the most reliable methods. Dr. Andrew Snelling, a geologist, points out several of these problems with potassium-argon, as seen in table 7.22

These and other examples raise a critical question. If radiometric dating fails to give an accurate date on something of which we do know the true age, then how can it be trusted to give us the correct age for rocks that had no human observers to record when they formed? If the methods don’t work on rocks of known age, it is most unreasonable to trust that they work on rocks of unknown age. It is far more rational to trust the Word of the God who created the world, knows its history perfectly, and has revealed sufficient information in the Bible for us to understand that history and the age of the creation.
Click to expand...
OK like I said - some believe the account of the earth being 6000 years old. If your using this as an argument about carbon isotope dating - geez I dunno where to start, its really a poor piece of science you quoted. But anyway...look like I said some Christians accept you view but a lot don't and I'll leave it at that. um and lastly u do know that radiotyping isn't used when we talk about aging of the universe right? Anywayz..like I said it a good debate n ty for sharing
 
MadeInGodsImage

MadeInGodsImage

Senior Member
#42
Mar 30, 2015
147
1
16
#42
zoii said:
OK like I said - some believe the account of the earth being 6000 years old. If your using this as an argument about carbon isotope dating - geez I dunno where to start, its really a poor piece of science you quoted. But anyway...look like I said some Christians accept you view but a lot don't and I'll leave it at that. um and lastly u do know that radiotyping isn't used when we talk about aging of the universe right? Anywayz..like I said it a good debate n ty for sharing
Click to expand...
Poor piece of Science? It's a simple argument by the author of the article, simple doesn't make it poor. Maybe you can shed some light on why you think otherwise and why the author is wrong? And yes, I know universe is not measured in this manner, the author is only talking about the earth and how people measure it's age.
 
Z

zoii

Banned
#43
Apr 8, 2015
895
18
0
#43
I thought the issues raised around error rates for the decay of carbon isotopes was fine. Error rates are built into every scientific result. The poor science then was his conclusion. He was basically saying...because the error bars have in some instances been wide, we shouldn't use them n therefore the bible projected rates should be the only valid figure, when, to be fair, there is no objective way to validate the concept of a 6000 yr old earth. So in short...if u r putting this up as a scientific report...it failed in its conclusions.
 
A

Anneliese

Guest
#44
#44
zoii said:
I thought the issues raised around error rates for the decay of carbon isotopes was fine. Error rates are built into every scientific result. The poor science then was his conclusion. He was basically saying...because the error bars have in some instances been wide, we shouldn't use them n therefore the bible projected rates should be the only valid figure, when, to be fair, there is no objective way to validate the concept of a 6000 yr old earth. So in short...if u r putting this up as a scientific report...it failed in its conclusions.
Click to expand...

Zoii, awesome thread. :)
 
Channa

Channa

Senior Member
#45
Mar 1, 2014
381
2
18
#45
Im not sure, but I think your age changed Zoii,
If so, happy birthday and many wishes for the next year :)
(and a nice threat ^^)
 
Z

zoii

Banned
#46
Apr 8, 2015
895
18
0
#46
Yea I just turned 15 :) and thanks.
 
Z

zoii

Banned
#49
Apr 8, 2015
895
18
0
#49
well I don't remember it actually Tin Tin lol...but ty :)
 
Z

zoii

Banned
#51
Apr 8, 2015
895
18
0
#51
Einstein surely was a genius to have formed his theroms of special and general relativity.
Special relativity is particularly mindblowing. That a clock on board a fast moving train will run more slowly than a clock on a platform.

Furthermore - if an object travels at 60 kmph... You sit on a nice platform on the moon and watch this object with a stop watch... ready go......annnnnnnnnnnnnnd stop. The time I on earth measured it and yours on the moon will be the same. What might changes is our measurement of how fast the object was. Because me on earth well i see only the obect moving. But you on the moon you see the earth spinning and hey the moon moves around the earth so the you'll see a a combined speed of all that.


Lets do it again. This time though the object is going to travel at the speed of light..... and yes the earth is still going to spin and the moon revolve around the earth so yeah all those combines speeds will affect it right?...lets see.....ready goooooo annnnnd stop. now lets calaculate those speeds again.....Wait a minute - your speed is calaculated to be the same as mine...wat da!!! The weird thing is...... my time is showing to be way less than yours :) Thats special relativity - amazing hey!!!

Now general relativity says...whats gravity...oh its just warping of the space-time continuum ... lets get a sheet of stretchy cloth and pull it out tight. Now get someone to put a water melon in the middle of it and watch it warp in the middle. Now lets get an organge and put it near the outer edge of our cloth and watch it roll in towards the melon....Thats gravity due to the warping of the speace time continuum - Thats Einsteins General Relativity :)
gravity-probe-b.jpg
 
Z

zoii

Banned
#52
Apr 8, 2015
895
18
0
#52
One of the issues about the aging of the earth and the variance between what science and what some will age using interpretations from the bible, is that what time are they actually talking about. Because time varies with the influence of gravity. We know all about this because the clocks on a satellite that inform the our GPSs and clocks on earth, tick faster, simply due to the effect of gravity. so when we say the earth is billions of years or as some Christians will say, 6000 years...just what time are you talking about.

Time is not a constant - it varies with speed and density. This is a 2 min vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRw6ox3dGcA


and this one is just over 8 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YByqTYzeJww
 
Hirokized

Hirokized

Member
#53
Mar 29, 2013
61
3
8
#53
Einstein's theory of gravity is one the mind blowing ideas that I like. The fact that gravity distorts time implies mind=blow. And to demonstrate that, there is this thing called Twin Paradox. That means that if you are fast(e.g. by running or in the plane) you are literally younger than those who just sit inside the house haha.

Maybe you might like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
It talks about the connection of magnet to special relativity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.