News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Against all common sense, some groups of people are promoting a young universe. A 6000 year old universe is being said to align with God's and Allah's Holy Books.

This is simply to get their flocks to fall in line and be prepared to obey their religious leaders unquestioningly.

The idea of a universe that young is so ridiculous that the purveyors of it force the indoctrination upon children in private schools so that they will carry the delusion on to further generations.

To point out the lack of common sense in this young universe idea, here is the most obvious contradiction of it.

The universe is supposed to be only 6000 years old but we can see galaxies that are more than a billion light years away.

If it takes light one year to travel a light year, then the galaxy we see that far away must be at least a billion years old. Simple math proves the complete ridiculousness of this young universe fantasy.

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. -- Glen Morton

While it is appears to be true that the Bible doesn't say the Earth is only 6000 years old, it does say God created light on the first day. It also says that He created stars on the fourth day. From day 1 to now, using Bible genealogies, is approximately 6000 years.

Per Genesis 1 (NIV):


So the light from those stars, unless it was created in situ before the stars were, should not have reached us by now.

Additionally, anything we appear to see happening to those stars (supernova...etc) could not have actually happened since the light would have to have been created billions of years before the stars were made.

Do you feel that God made the light so that it would show events that didn't really happen?

http://publicliterature.org/pdf/relat10.pdf

is a pdf of Einstein's book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory

It may also be available through
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/index.htm

Where page 12 meets page 13 of the ebook, I find


When it suits Einstein, he maintains the speed of light cannot be measured!

He is arguing here against the possibility of simultaneous events. His double-talking arguments take time to sort out. In the end, his conclusion is that no two events can be simultaneous; that time cannot be measured consistently; neither can distance; yet somehow the speed of light can be measured. Speed is what? Distance over time!

I will further point out that any speed measurement involves starting and stopping (or reading at least) a clock simultaneously with the beginning and end of the event being timed! If you accept Einstein's argument that events cannot be simultaneous,logically you must conclude that events cannot be timed and speeds cannot be measured. The alternative is to be illogical about it.

Chapter 28 is where the double-standard becomes obvious:
He has proposed his system for "General Relativity", and he explains that one can use it provided one is satisfied with results that are "close enough for government work".

(Did you catch the simultaneous reading of two clocks?)

Recall that his objections to classical methods are merely complaints that infinite precision cannot be practically obtained. Hardly newsworthy. The system he advocates doesn't offer infinite precision either, so the problem isn't solved in any way.

One of the the primary differences is that one becomes committed to imprecision under the new system, whereas under the old system the imprecision was a by-product of instruments and methods.

Doubt this? Check out a fuller context, and pay attention to the last sentence.

Some who are reading this might be under the impression that Einstein has been co-opted here to prove that the age of the universe can't be measured, but that would be nonsense because we all know that CTD is an expert in quantum physics and relativity, and he knows what a reference mollusc and a Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate system are.

I'm under the impression that Einstein's quotes in both posts refer to the relativity of time using the reference frame of the speed of light, an effect which is barely noticeable at short distances or insignificant velocities and which also requires observers at different points in order for the measure of time to be relative. Maybe CTD could explain how I'm wrong, and how it actually means that Einstein is saying that the speed of light cannot be measured. A Nobel Prize awaits a thorough answer.

I shouldn't like to be tasked with explaining what your sentences mean, let alone how they're wrong.

Also, I seriously doubt that a "Nobel Prize" in the common sense of the term is yours to grant.

Aw shoot! I look at it one second too long & spotted one error. I suspect there are more, but this will do.
The speed of light is not a reference frame.

I suspect you think flinging terms about that you do not begin to understand is impressive. I suspect you are correct in they eyes of some. I suspect the aforementioned some are

My language was not exact in scientific terms, but what I was saying is that Einstein was talking about the relativity of time and using the speed of light to demonstrate his point, since light speed is the fastest anything can go according to known physics. Relativistic effects are minimal unless you are looking at, for example, the environment around a black hole.



You mean like claiming to draw inferences from texts concerning reference molluscs and Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate systems? Or are you saying you do understand those things?

You are evading the question.

Please explain how time being relative means that the speed of light cannot be measured.

If you read my linked-to post, you will discover that I address these statements as Earth-based observations for an Earth-based race. This certainly makes sense as the Bible was written for people in this dispensation of time.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
(Genesis 1:3)

The phrase "Let there be" is the Strong's 1961 (haw-yaw') and means "be or become, come to pass". It does not convey a creation, at least, not necessarily.

Again, I believe the best understanding and most logical interpretation of these verses conveys Earth-based observations, especially considering that Earth existed before this re-creation event. I think it's safe to assume that light and stars did also.



In my understanding of these verses, this question is irrelevant because, again, the Biblical account is written for primitive, nontechnical Earth-based observers.

I personally have no problem with an old universe, perhaps even very old.

Nevertheless, I do believe CTD's statements deserve consideration.

I shan't venture to guess what you'll claim you were saying next.

Do you intend to use Einstein's choice of terms against me? If I had said space was a mullosc, you might be justified in mocking the idea. I did not.

As for understanding the terms, old Albert explained the Gaussian coordinate system earlier in the book. You might take a peek sometime.

That false accusation almost landed you with an official warning.

1.) The question was not asked in any previous post.

2.) This is the equivalent of asking me the colour of a cat after I just got done saying the cat was black.

Einstein maintained that the classical system had to be abandoned because folks were unable to measure time, speed, and distance to infinite precision. Twenty chapters later, the double-talker claimed that approximate measurements would do if one accepted his approximate universe.

He's the one complaining about the inability to measure the speed of light. I pointed out that in order to measure speed, one needs to measure both time and distance.

Now this could result from time being relative, as you suggest, or from time being inconsistent in some other way. If time cannot be measured, neither can speed. By definition speed is merely the distance something travels in a given amount of time. If this formula is too much for you, I don't think I can help. These are the simplest terms that come to mind. I don't intend to keep repeating myself, so you might move on to some other phase of your game.

I find myself wondering where this is supposed to lead. Are you trying to say that the universe is 6000 years old (the topic of the thread) -- by way of trying to prove that we cannot measure the speed of light?

Einstein may well be right about us not being able to measure things with infinite precision. I don't see how this links up with your point though, unless you are hoping that this means we are way off base in our attempts to measure the speed of light, which doesn't appear to be the case as people have been doing this in a creative variety of ways for decades and their results are in agreement. I've read claims myself that the speed of light may not be a constant, though no scientist has actually proposed that this would mean the universe is only a few thousand years old.

Here is an interesting article I found on the subject. It explains why it can be meaningless to attempt to measure things that possibly fluctuate when the measures that are used could possibly fluctuate as well. It's better to look at a ratio and investigate whether the ratio has changed over time. In this article, the ratio used is represented as alpha, which is a measure of the relationship between electromagnetic effects and quantum effects and thus has no units (the speed at which an electron in a hydrogen atom orbits the proton, divided by the speed of light). It then goes on to look at evidence which could prove or disprove that this ratio has changed since the beginning of the universe. The conclusion is that is may have changed a little in the very beginning.

Thank you CTD for inspiring me to learn more about this. I can't see how it would support a 6000 year old universe, but it's truly fascinating.

I've honestly tried to think about where you're going with this but I'm not sure. Like I said, relativistic effects are only detectable when particles are moving at great speed, as they would be doing near a black hole. So while absolute precision may not be possible, settling for almost-absolute precision isn't normally a problem.

If this doesn't address your concerns then maybe you can elaborate on what exactly they are.

Perhaps I'm not so concerned as you wish me to be. I think folks are learning not to accept conclusions until the assumptions behind them are fully disclosed.

My evaluation of the assumptions in this case is that they're not all that impressive.

Some may find this to be of interest.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/07/24/154610.htm

The news has been somewhat delayed.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html

And I get a particular kick out of the denial:

It's a shame people have to say such things in order to get their results published... eventually... perhaps... oh so hopefully. But say them they must.

And the "information can't go that fast" excuse doesn't look to have so much merit either.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2062115/posts

Maybe they'll have to fall beck on the "quantum physics isn't compatible with relativity" line?

Wow, thanks for these links! This is really cool stuff.

It would be fascinating if it could be proved with further experiments that in certain conditions energy really can move faster than light speed. However, this is energy and not matter. E=MC2 says that as a particle approaches light speed, its mass will increase until at the actual speed of light it would become infinitely massive, and time would stop. Relativity has been tested many times over the past decades and LinearAQ can probably tell you how physicists have to make small but significant adjustments to the trajectories of spacecraft in order to guide them with precision.

The second link really is gratifying. It would seem to be empirical evidence of the existence of telepathy, which to me appears to be a real phenomenon anyway. Einstein was uncomfortable with some of his own findings, he was quite a conservative person at heart, and he sometimes worked to compensate for those findings that he didn't want to accept. He didn't like quantum physics, for example, and he didn't like the possibility of "spooky action at a distance."

So yes, Einstein wasn't right 100% of the time. I don't suppose anybody is. However, that is not justification for throwing out his whole body of work, especially since much of it has been experimentally verified. What we may find in future is that he becomes a figure much like Newton, who was correct about much but didn't grasp the fuller picture. Knowledge builds upon knowledge in science.

I still fail to see what your point is CTD, maybe you can clarify. This thread is about a 6,000 year old universe. Do you think you have evidence that the universe is 6,000 years old?

Could you explain how the paper by Einstein supports a 6000 year old universe?

What is a "dispensation of time" in the context of what you are saying?

By changing the point of reference to the observation of people on Earth, you open up the Bible for all sorts of interpretations.
From the viewpoint of the Hebrews that produced Genesis, the animals appear to have always been in the form (kinds) that they are now. So from the observer's point of view God created them all as they are now, which may not have been how God actually did it or how long God actually took to do it.

The word used for the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars is `asah which means to make or create. That means the stars were created on
Day 4. Are you saying that it actually means the observance of the creation of the stars occurred on Day 4 even though they were made billions of years before that? Who was there to observe this creation event so that it could be noted that this occurred on Day 4, plants? Did God time all the creation of the stars such that they would appear on the same day? The Sun could have been created on the same day, but Proxima Centauri was created 4.2 years before that. Sirius created 8.6 years before Day 4. The star that became SN1987A was created 168,000 years before that? Is this how you view the creation scenario?

The Earth existing prior to Day 1 does not require the stars to exist at that time. A literal reading of the Bible shows the stars being created on Day 4.


People that might not need to know the details of inflation theory or evolution in order to understand that God is mighty and that He is a personal God.

Ok...then we have no disagreement here unless you say Genesis 1 and 2 are literal history.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Since CTD didn't explain how his quotes relate to the 6000 year old Earth concept, I won't try to reply in detail to what he is posting here. I don't want to run afoul of the moderators like Linda almost did upthread.

Until he actually relates it to my thread topic in a clear fashion, I will treat it as an off-topic diversion.

The current one.



I am not changing the point of reference FROM anything other than your previous ASSUMPTIONS.

I am simply clarifying what the book says by looking at the original language.



On the contrary, by looking at the original language, I am narrowing and refining the original interpretation.



Here is a complete definition of aw-saw' directly from Strong's:

"A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use."

—Strong's H6213

"Appoint"
"Bring Forth"
etc.

Funny, I don't see the word "Create" in the list.



First of all, God produced Genesis.

Secondly, I have no idea how you can make this assumption.



Yes. From an Earth perspective, they became visible at that time.

It makes no sense to tell a child that a medicine will stimulate T-cell production when he does not even know what a cell is. Rather, you tell him/her what it will do in an egocentric perspective.

Likewise, it makes no sense to tell primitive people that you are creating great spheres vast distances away that perform nuclear reactions when they don't even know what an atom is.

It makes much more sense to describe the event in an egocentric perspective for the benefit of the target audience: The stars became visible, they were "brought forth".



What different does it make?

If the stars are visible from Earth, they are visible whether people are there or not.

The creation account was written by inspiration of God.



In all likelihood, God cleared the air in such a way that the stars became visible from an Earth perspective.

The entire Earth on the same day?

Yes, or do you think that is beyond God's ability?



Don't understand the question.

Where are you pulling these numbers from?



As I explained earlier and initially, the stars became visible on day 4. Your choice of the word "created" is incorrect and arbitrary.



Nice try, except that evolution is ridiculous on it's face, and it is not supported by science.



You are playing word games. This is not intellectually honest. Let the reader be the judge.

Literal history, yes, your choice of words (which happens to be in opposition to Strong's), no.



History shows that you need no excuse to do that

My theory:

In short, God "created" the universe a long time ago.

God rearranged the solar system (to support life on Earth) and created life on Earth a long time after.

Again, we have to pay careful attention to the words in the original language. The read also has to be aware that your choice of the word "create" (above) is arbitrary.

To "appoint" or "bring forth" are much different in meaning than the word "create".

So, the reason I think we see evidence of an old universe and a new universe is that God made the universe a long time ago (it is old) and rearranged or renewed the Earth and some bodies in the local solar system recently (about 6000 years ago) to facilitate life on Earth.

I believe this is the current best-standing explanation considering the evidence while excluding the junk science and propaganda.

Where does the Bible say that all the creation events are from the Earth's frame of reference?

Except there are a number of meanings for haw-yaw':


You choose the meaning "to appear", I guess, concerning God's creation of light. What I don't understand is why that is the meaning that must apply here. What are the clues in the text that lead you to this meaning?

With so many meanings, what makes you so sure that your interpretation is correct, especially since it appears to be in opposition to most Bible scholars or at least those that produced the major translations.

You are right, I confused "make" to also mean "create".

From you. You make the assumption that the stars were not created during creation week but only became visible on Day 4. Why couldn't God just say he made the stars a long time ago? He could have told them that the stars were far away, as many cubits as there are sand grains on the beach.

Just like it makes no sense to tell a primitive people that animals evolved to make the forms we see today, when they don't even know what DNA is.

It makes more sense to tell them that animals produce after their own kind than to tell them that all animals are related to each other through a common ancestor. It is more practical for a primitive people.

It just seems a little strange for God to go to all the trouble of making each heavenly body at different times over billions of years of time so that the light from each would reach Earth on the same day when there was no one there to see it happen. A lot of energy and planning expended on God's part just to impress a bunch of plants.

God made the stars visible on Day 4, to make the daffodils happy.

The numbers are the distances of those stars in light years. Your cloudy skies scenario apparently dispells my created-stars-over-billions-of-years-so-the-light-from-each-would-reach-Earth-on-Day-4 scenario. I just don't understand why you insist that God made the stars billions of years ago. Could you point out where the text gives that impression?

As arbitrary as the scholars that put together the King James version, the NIV, New American Standard, Youngs Literal Translation, the Jewish Publication Society English Translation....etc. Do you have any Bible Scholars that support your interpretation?

You say that but have not really attempted to support this assertion. Strangely, more than 95% of scientists agree with the major aspects of common descent. That indicates to me that it is supported by science.

And you calling me dishonest does not mean that I am. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true either. You believe that the universe is billions of years old, maybe even the 13 billion that cosmologists have concluded. In this, we agree despite the disagreement on the methodology by which we drew our conclusions.

Well, maybe I'm changing

You believe the dating methods that show the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old or is the renewed Earth supposed to be new in every aspect?

Nearly all events in the Bible are drawn from Earth's frame of reference, so it's logical to consider that the Genesis account is as well.



The clues in the text are found in the second sentence of Genesis which clearly indicates that the Earth was not created at this time, but rather renewed.

This is a strong indication that the concept "to appear" is the correct interpretation for the stars.

You would have to agree that "to appear" is certainly an option. Why then is it not the right option, especially considering the context?



Most of the modern translations are purposely corrupt. Here is a video that every Christian should watch from beginning to end to understand this:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0021

The King James is not without translation errors because it was translated by humans, and as we all know, humans are error prone.

Looking at the original language is a powerful way to more clearly understanding the original intent of the words.

I believe my interpretation is (at least, more) correct because we have more knowledge and more technology today that makes it trivial for us to research these things.

Furthermore, the newer translations are corrupt and some have been copyrighted which requires significantly different words to be used, regardless of whether or not they are accurate.



Or perhaps He could say "they appeared" on the fourth day. Isn't that essentially what He said, putting the assumptive translation aside?

I think there is good science that indicates that the stars weren't created on the fourth day.

Considering this, and considering that nearly all of the Bible is written from an Earth perspective, it only makes sense that Genesis would be written the same way.

So, when we interpret the Bible congruent with the rest of the Biblical writing style, and we also consider good science, everything fits into place perfectly.

This is just good reasoning.



Sure, and I know that you're really stuck on the idea that God used evolution to "create" life on Earth.

The only problem with this idea is a fatal problem, and that is that evolution simply cannot occur with today's known chemical laws. In the 1800's it was an option, today, it isn't.

We know that amino acids do not self assemble and that no chemical-bonding rules exist to facilitate the self-assembly of a cell, much less the self-assembly of a highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive parts), self-reproducing human body.

It is much more logical to accept that an Intelligence built these machines, not that they built themselves.

Remember, no chemical laws exist to facilitate a self-building process. This is why the complex mechanisms exist within a cell that build and fold proteins. These mechanisms (machines) must exist for this process to succeed.

I truly realize that the reason that most people get caught up in believing evolution is not because it makes sense, but because people are unable or unwilling to believe that such a grand scientific deception could be pulled-off in this day and age.

In this context, it is important to consider that global-warming has just been essentially conceded as a hoax. If you do some research, you will realize that the elimination of polio had nothing to do with the vaccine. That too was a hoax. The lies about colloidal silver being useless, the safety of mercury in vaccines, the safety of amalgam dental fillings, piltdown man, the safety of Aspartame, and on and on ...Are just that: Hoaxes and lies.

You see, I love science, but the unfortunate truth is that we are living in a time when technology facilitates the promotion of lies with an efficiency never before possible.



This is not what I believe.

Rather, it's more likely that, from an Earth perspective, the dust cleared away as God calmed the winds and then the stars became visible, that is, they "came to pass" (haw-yaw'). Notice that all of the heavenly bodies, stars and the sun and moon, became visible on the same day.

You see, this is a perfectly logical explanation which satisfies both science and the original language of the Bible.



On day 3, God likely initiated the process of plant life. Whether He supernaturally made things grow fast or whether the process was only initiated at that time is not clear. But in my experience with God, I know that he often uses natural processes (based on rules that He devised) to get things done.

So, considering this:

When God makes the statement that He "saw" in Genesis 1:12, we have to consider that the word may be better translated "approved" or "considered". We also have to consider the possibility that when God "saw" the "bringing forth", this does not necessarily mean that His observation was made on the fourth day. This observation could have been made some time later (that is, if it is an observation rather than a consideration). It is possible that only the creation of the seeds and the distribution and planting of the seeds occurred on the fourth day. We also have to consider that God see "through" time, so time-displacement language is also a possibility.

Of course, this makes sense that the seed system was created on the day before the air cleared but a couple days after the Earth was set in rotation (day 1).

The more we sort out Genesis based on the original language and without our presuppositions, the more it makes sense, both logically and scientifically.



I explained this above.



The more modern translations would not have been financially successful if they diverged from the current beliefs.

Remember, these modern translation are meant to deceive while making money.

Again, see this as a reference:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0021

People's appeal for ideas flow through time much like music. If you were to create and market music that you found popular 50 years from now, it would likely not be very acceptable to the current generation.



Historically, judging truth by popular support is a failed practice.

At one time, 99% of dentists believed that mercury does not offgas from amalgam dental fillings, but it does:
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=32651#Post32651

At one time, most of the population believed that tomatoes were poisonous (see the tomato effect).

You see, those who pay for schooling are prone to believe what they are taught. Now that people are beginning to think for themselves, evolution is crumbling and is being abandon by non-trivial numbers of scientists.

This growing number of scientists agree with me: "Evolution is not supported by science".



First, to be fair, dating methods are in some conflict with each other, so the actual age of the Earth is hard to determine.

Nevertheless, the Earth certainly seems to be older than 6,000 or 12,000 years old, and when properly interpreted, the Bible supports this.

I personally have no idea how old the Earth is, but neither does science. Remember, 20 years ago, science believed the earth was several hundred-million years old. In 20 short years it has grown to be several billion years old.

This makes it apparent that science does not know for sure how old the Earth is. (What will be the claimed age of the Earth 20 years from now?)

I personally lean toward believing that the Earth is quite old (perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old) and that God renewed the Earth quote recently, perhaps 6,000 years ago. This is why we have evidence of a young Earth combined with evidence of an old Earth.

We see molten layers that may have formed as a result of the renewed rotation of the Earth that may have started at Genesis day 1. I don't know for sure. I can only look at the evidence and make my best guesses.

I only ask that science have the integrity to say the same thing, that is, that there is conflicting evidence and they really don't know the answers. In reality, scientists have many conflicting opinions.

This is the only intellectually honest thing to do.

Despite what people think about the Biblical (re)creation account, it's important for people to consider the accuracy of Biblical prophecy, archeology, and numerology.

The Bible is an astounding Book and should be read and studied by anyone searching for truth.



"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

—Professor Steven J. Gould, Harvard University



"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History



"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.



"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306

I will leave it at that. You agree with me that the universe is over 13 billion years old and the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. In that, you also disagree with most YEC's

Technology like the measurement of radioactive isotope ratios.

I guess that since we agree on the age of the universe and the Earth, you no longer need to debate with me on this topic. Thanks for your participation.

I have noticed that no one who believes that God created the entire universe only 6000 years ago, has bothered to show up here. It's only been a short while though. Maybe they are just putting together their detailed response to refute the conclusion that the Earth and universe are eons old.

I'm sorry. I didn't say that.

It's important to be accurate when speaking about scientific matters such as this, so let me be clear.

While it is true that I disagree with young-Earth-creationists on the age of the universe, I don't believe the universe is over 13 billion years old. I stated that I do not know how old the universe is.

Please be careful, as it is just these types of generalizations that enable evolution to exists in the minds of people at all.



Again, you are building misinformation upon assumption, a tactic so very common when studying evolution-related beliefs.

This is not intellectually honest, and because this subject is so important, we should do our best to maintain integrity in our information.



That's right. These measurements have recently been shown to have fundamental issues. The ratios have been distorted because of preexisting assumptions about decay rates.

For example, some isotopes are assumed to decay over millions of years following an exponential curve, yet, we have only been able to observe these curves for 70 or 80 years, so we've only been able to actually measure a very tiny portion of the curve while assuming (predicting) what the rest of the curve will look like.

This is perfect example of a vast assumption, and this assumption is used as the basis for other conclusions, such as the age of the Earth.

These types of assumptions are the reason that 25 years ago, science thought the Earth was several hundred million years old. Now, 25 years later, science claims it is 6 billion years old.

Today, science suffers from an epidemic of hypothetical assumption assumed as truth.


"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."

—James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

Since you don't know, and we can see galaxies that are 13 billion light years away, the common sense conclusion is that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.


What assumption is that? My assumption that someone will actually show up and try to refute my initial statement with something akin to evidence? Perhaps you need to be a little more detailed in your criticism of my post.

Which part of my "information" lacks integrity? Please be detailed in your criticism. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you are just spouting off generalized bull... in order to satisfy the rah-rah faithful on this board.

Your response indicates that you understand very little about radioactive decay.
Radioactive decay is based on observation, certainly. However, this observation has never been shown to be in error regardless of the decay rate. Therefore the radioactive decay law: N(t)=N(0)*e^(-L*t) is shown to apply to all radioactive elements and is only affected by the radioactive decay constant, "L", for that particular element.

The only way to change it is to change the decay constant which changes the rate at which the decay would occur. Even if the decay rate changed, the exponential curve would still be the result. It would just be more steep in the beginning.

Are you suggesting that the decay rates of all radioactive elements were much higher in the past?

Show me a quote from a geologist in 1984 that said the Earth is only several hundred million years old. The first estimated age of the Earth was adequately supported by radiometric data occurred in 1953. That age was 4.55 billion years.

Today, creationism suffers from an epidemic of nonsensical assumption assumed as truth.


James Conant, the chemist and Harvard president died in 1978. Obviously, the quote in 1982 is not a direct interview in 1982. So, what was the context in which he was talking about science and history? What is the original document from which the text is quoted? Are you not interested in getting anything accurate or do you just blindly trust Origins Research because they pay lip service to your belief structure?

I'm not sure you read my response because this is exactly my point.

We really don't know what L is because it has never been observed. This value is based on assumption.

Since L is based on an assumption, the result of the calculation is arbitrary until we really know what L is.



Furthermore, we really don't know that the formula is correct. We really don't know that the curve is exponential because it is not based in observation. It is based on faith.


As I keep saying, this is not science, it is broad speculation and I wish people would not insult science by associating guesses and speculation to the name science.



I've said nothing to resemble this statement, although decay rates could be affected by conditions that may have existed. We cannot rule this possibility out.



I don't have the textbooks that we used back then so I can't show you the quotes. Nevertheless, that's what they said.

I would suspect that the dating you are referring to in the 50's was also in conflict with other dating which is why it was not used in many/any/some textbooks.



If you view the quote reference information:

—James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

You will see that it clearly indicates that it is not a first-reference.

You have found "flaws" with quotes I have cited in the past, I then researched them and found, to date, that none of your objections have been valid.

None.



"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."

—D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.


"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

And that assumption is...?

L is the natural log of 2 divided by the half life of the radioactive element. The half life is determined by observation of the decay of the element and documenting when half of the element has decayed into another element. For extremely long lived elements the half life calculation is performed using an extrapolation from a timed observation of decay.

Which part of this process do you consider arbitrary?

I think this is something you need to provide more depth on. I have explained above how the half life is determined. You need to show how that process involves "faith".


I wish people wouldn't insult science by making guesses about the validity of a particular field of science that they know little about.

Name a condition that could change the radioactive decay rate of an element.

I don't believe you are making a correct statement. Perhaps you remember it wrong. I was in high school in the 1970's and I remember the 4.5 billion from my Geology class.

Suspect what you like, evidence is what you need to make a case for your assertion.

Duh. How about providing the original reference...or is that not important to the imparting of truth that you so revere?

I'm sure you will never agree....so what? I don't post it for you.

Pierre-Paul de Grasse was not a creationist. He was a follower of Lamark's theory for the diversity of life on the Earth. The theory is similar to evolution in that all life came from one ancestor but the mechanism is different than Darwin's theory.

I guess you subscribe to the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"....regardless of what they really believe.

Like when people who don't know what a molecule is and/or what 'replication' means regale us with tales of self-replicating molecules?

molecule: an assembly of 2 or more atoms held together through shared electron shells which, under certain conditions produces a lower energy state than the two separate atoms.

replication: copying of an object to form another object with the same material structure.

Since there is no such thing as "self-replicating" in the manner which Russ appeared to mean, I saw no reason to answer his question. Besides, he did not state which "rules of chemistry" were violated by assembly of "complex self-replicating machines", despite being asked several times. It was his claim of such that started the exchange, he should support it, I think. However....

Maybe it was not me to whom you refer with your obtuse insult.

As I said before, the decay rates have not been observed and are therefore assumed. You referred to this problem in your post using the word "extrapolation".

We can call it what we want, but the bottom line here is that the extrapolation is an assumption, not an observation.



What I mean when I say a process involves faith is that one does not know the process. Nevertheless, when people choose to accept that which we don't really know as fact, they are actually accepting it by faith.

Some scientists assume that all radioactive decay rates operate according to the formula that you provided. Since many of these curves have not been observed, this is an assumption.

Our records of observations of decay rates only go back perhaps 70-80 years, and even then, records were not kept until well after that. So, as you said, there is an extrapolation that takes place.

The problem is that this extrapolation is based on the assumption that all decay rates follow the same curve defined by the formula.

We don't know if this is true or not because many of them have not been observed, especially those often quoted in relation to evolution.

It is, therefore, an assumption. If this assumption is accepted, it is accepted by faith.



A more pertinent question would be to ask you if you can state with confidence that there are no factors that affect radioactive decay rates.

That gets to the root of the matter much more directly.



I'm quite sure I remember it correctly. I did a lot of thinking at that time about how long a million years is because of those textbook claims.

Additionally, I'm not the only one. I have heard from others over the years who have also seen the textbooks changing the age of the Earth over the past few decades.



I apologize if the quote is incorrect. If you find it is, please correct me.

I don't wish to misquote anyone.



No.

Actually I don't judge truth by my personal feelings about the messenger or their reasoning.

Truth is truth no matter how I feel about it. I discovered this important principle in elementary school.

It's not about friendship, likes, dislikes, or feelings. It just about truth.



You're asking me to prove a negative.

My position is that chemical binding rules do not facilitate the self-assembly of highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines.

Darwin tried to break the claim into little pieces, but he did not know or understand even the slightest about the depth of complexity that exists inside a cell. He did not consider symmetry. He did not properly consider sexuality.

His obsolete claims are those of a simple man obsessed with promoting a claim, whatever his ambitions.

"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good;..."
(Charles Robert Darwin, The Origin of Species (1870), 80.)

Linear has stated that complex reactions to occur within the cell. Indeed they do, but their require the assistance of a vast toolshed of complex machinery to do it.

Shall we then claim that the toolshed of complex machinery built itself?

No.

An external intelligence built the machines that facilitate complex processes.

There is no other logical explanation.

What was observed is that in each case the observed decay of long half-life materials followed the same exponential curve as the short half-life materials that were observed for almost all of their decay.

Hereis a paper on half-life.

Does this mean you believe that if there is any assumption involved in a conclusion, that the conclusion cannot be used to describe reality or used as evidence for that reality?

Shouldn't there be some sort of hierarchy for assumptions? Perhaps assumptions based of partial observation could be considered more valid than an assumption based on no observation?

If we cannot use any evidence based on assumption then there is little need for jails because you could not convict anyone.

You have a witness that says he saw the accused leaving the murder scene rapidly. You really can't use that as evidence because.
1. The witness didn't see the actual crime so it is assumed that the suspect was there during the murder.
2. You can't use the assumption that the witness is not lying.
3. You can't use the assumption that the witness was not having an hallucination at the time.

You can't do any forensic investigation of a suspected arson because you can't assume that the laws of physics were completely in effect at that location when the fire started. Maybe the flash point of the wood temporarily lowered to 20 degrees long enough for the wood to flash into flame.

I'm surprised that you even make it through a day without worrying that the chemical reactions that digest your food won't suddenly change so that cucumbers are poison to you.

So are your assumptions. So how do we get some kind of feel that a particular assumption is relatively valid because your take on it makes any study of the past invalid. Also it pretty much makes invalid any study of the present in order to develop something that works in the future. You assume that your Immune Stimulator will work tomorrow but that is invalid because you haven't observed it working tomorrow.

As you so famously state further in your post, I can't prove a negative. You seem to be stating that since we cannot show that there are no factors that can change decay rates, that they must have changed.

Wow!

I can't show that there are no leprechauns so there must be leprechauns.

I can't show that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn, so there must be one.

I can't show that Young Earth Creationism is not the stupidest idea since the beginning of time, so it must be.

What do you think...should we live our lives believing that every proposed idea must be valid since we cannot show that it is not?

No I am not. I am asking you which chemical binding rules are violated by "self assembly" of these highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual(different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines.

All you have to do is name one of the "chemical binding rules" that is violated and show how the "self assembly" process required by evolution violates that particular rule.

Since you seem to have studied these processes enough to conclude that they violate the "chemical binding rules", this should be a snap for you.

Even if you do show one "chemical binding rule" that is violated by the "self assembly" process, that doesn't help your case. In order for your argument to have validity you must assume that the "chemical binding rules" were the same back when life was started. An assumption on that scale would be just like scientists assuming that radioactive decay worked the same in the past as it does now. We all know that you don't accept assumptions about the past, so you shouldn't use them either...it would be unscientific of you.

Where did I claim that an external intelligence was not involved? I simply differ with you on the process used by that intelligence in the creation of the Earth that we see today.

My position is unchanged. Even your link to the information on half-lives uses much probability language.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of long decay rates have not been observed. We are assuming their shape even though we have only observed a very, very small fraction of their decay.

The extrapolation you mentioned in your previous post is based on assumption. Graphically, it looks like this:



The part of the curve we have observed in this graph is represented in red. The red circle is merely used to draw attention to the red part of the graph.

In fact, the amount we have observed is much smaller than the red dot you see here, but it's been dramatically enlarged to make it visible in the graphic.

So, in simple terms, everything beyond the red dot is extrapolation, or, in more accurate terms, assumption.



No, not at all.

We have found over and over again that our scientific beliefs about the world have been wrong. No, not wrong about everything, but wrong about the big things.

The best way not to be wrong is to not assume.

As I've said before, the textbooks that myself and my colleagues were schooled from claimed that the world was a few hundred million years old, and this was just over 20 years ago.

It would have been better and more honest for science to say:

"Some of our current testing methods seem to indicate that the Earth is a few hundred million years old, but some of our other methods conflict with these findings, so in fact, we're really not sure right now."

This would have been the correct—and honest—way to make this statement.



No. Actually, I'm simply being intellectually honest.

The fact is, we really don't know. So we can look at the data, draw some preliminary thoughts and ideas, but in fact, we really don't know.

This is much, much closer to the truth than high schools, universities, museums, and mass media are currently teaching.



I have already shown you a whole class of chemical binding processes that are impossible and are a brick wall to evolution:

Amino Acids Do Not Self-Assemble Into Proteins
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0029

You also have the innumerable problems associated with symmetry. For example:

How does a mirror image of this knuckle, cartilage, connective tissue, bone, etc., etc. form over on the other side of the body in just the right symmetrical location?

How do the rods and cones form perfectly in one eye and then the other in a mirror image and then the skull form symmetrically and then the muscles and connective tissue for the eye form and attach in just the right position to create perfect symmetry, and then the optic nerve form, connect to the rods and cones in just the right way and then the optic nerve grows just correctly to serve its purpose.

These types of examples of the symmetrical complexity are also applied to the reproductive system:

How does a male reproductive system develop perfectly to work with a female reproductive system in separate organisms?

These types of questions draw attention to the sheer absurdity of evolution... Believing that highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing organisms self-assemble.



I am very aware that you believe some intelligence used the process of evolution to "build" human bodies.

Regardless of the person or entity that you believe is at the head of the operation, it's clear that the process was outside the scope of natural law, and therefore, "supernatural".

Evolution believes that the process was based on natural laws.

My position is simply this:

Natural laws are woefully insufficient to assemble highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines.

The better explanation is that evolution is a social control used by global power brokers to discredit the Bible so that personal rights and freedoms—maintained by Biblical law—can be removed, and that this enslavement is necessary for the invocation of the last world government, often coined by the power brokers themselves as "The New World Order".


"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.



"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306



"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67



"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

That's because the probability function associated with radioactive decay is what determines the shape of the decay curve.

Every single short lived radioactive decay has followed the exponential decay curve that is described by the probability equations. Every single one All of the observed portions of the long lived decays also follow the same exponential curve described by the probability equations. Every single one.
So what do you think is the most reasonable assumption?
1. That the elements undergoing long half life radioactive decay, followed the same decay pattern that they do now?

Or

2. Even though we don't know of anything that can cause the decay pattern to change, that it probably did change and any estimate of the age of anything is very likely completely unreliable so we can't know anything about the past at all.


Ok. We can't assume that someone's fingerprint on that knife left in the victim really belongs to the person who matches the print because we haven't fingerprinted everyone on Earth so there might be someone else who matches the print. Case dismissed.

We can't assume that the Old Testament was correctly copied during the time before Christ even though there are records showing the copying requirements were stringent. So, the current Bible is not the document that the inspired authors originally wrote.

We can't be sure that our current mother and father are our biological mother and father even though the DNA tests seem to show it. To accept the validity of the DNA tests we would have to know the DNA of every other person on Earth to ensure there weren't any others with the exact DNA of our mother and father.

At this point I can think of nothing that can not be discarded because everything requires an assumption of some type.

Not if the technology that they had at the time indicated that the world was only a few hundred million years old. All scientific conclusions are considered tentative because of the limits of knowledge at the time. You seem to be suggesting that scientists make no conclusions unless they know everything.

Do you know everything about the products you sell? If not, then perhaps you should draw no conclusions about the efficacy until you do know everything about them. Quick! Stop selling them!!

The teaching institutions are teaching the conclusions drawn from the knowledge that we do have. You want to be intellectually honest as you state then you have to say that your conclusions about how life came about are more lacking in supporting evidence than evolution. Yours is more of a guess than that of the scientific community.

That video is not evidence because the biologist presenting it does not even try to provide a list of chemical rules that are violated. In this particular little snippet, he doesn't say anything except that he doesn't think it can happen. He says his research lead him to believe that amino acids can't assemble into proteins.

He has not done any research to prove or disprove his declaration. He contends (hypothesizes) that amino acids cannot assemble into proteins but makes no effort to test his hypothesis. Why?



What chemical rules are violated by this formation of symmetry?

What chemical rule is violated by the formation of 2 symmetrical eyes?

What chemical rules are violated by the formation of male and female reproductive systems?

Dr Kenyon didn't supply any answers to this so I must turn back to you. What chemical rules are violated by the formation of "highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing organisms"?

Natural laws that are put in place by a creator.

Which "natural laws" are violated by the assembly of highly complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines? Please just name one law that is violated and details on how the assembly of highly complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines violates that law.

I believe that this is unmitigated baloney for which you have not produced a single shred of evidence to support.
If I am wrong in this statement then please point out where you have provided evidence of the social control aspect of the theory of evolution.

How does one obtain a pure sample of any of these elements in order to measure the curve? They'll decay while one is collecting them. One does not. Even with the "short-lived isotopes", extrapolation and indirect methodology are involved.

Attempting to change the question now? It's a bit late. Self-assembly ? assembly.

Please explain how obtaining a pure sample is required to obtain an accurate measure of radioactive decay. What prevents the obtaining of a sample and measuring the initial ratio of parent to daughter product, measuring the radioactive decay, then measuring the ratio of parent to daughter product again? Shouldn't that give an accurate accounting of the amount of decay of the parent isotope?

How does obtaining a less-than-pure sample prevent the measurement of the half life?

If extrapolation and indirect methodology are needed, does this automatically invalidate the results of the experiment? How so?

Not attempting to change the question. I just defined "self-assembly" as "assembly under the right chemical conditions" since Russ didn't define it anywhere.
If you disagree with my definition, then please define self-assembly as it applies the highly complex symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines.

I didn't see any previous attempt to misdefine 'self-assembly'. This one fails, obviously enough.

Thanks for your evaluation of my definition. Could you provide the proper definition or point out where that definition has been provided?

I could endeavour to teach you how the English language works, but I prefer to spend my time on more promising projects.

What you propose is indirect and incomplete, so the results would have to be extrapolated to produce a complete "curve".

If you had read your own link, you might have pieced this together.

I also recall reading that obtaining measurements entails destroying samples, so it seems impractical to suggest measuring the same sample twice.

And I could endeavor to teach you to be less of a jerk but I prefer to avoid wasting my time on a lost cause.

I asked you for the definition used in this case because "self-assembly" could simply mean that the molecules will facilitate the formation of copies of themselves. Is that what Russ means?

What is it about you that fears being exact in what you discuss? You have said that evolutionists are the masters of obfuscation yet you can't even provide a simple (or so you imply) definition. Instead you retreat into your usual sideways insults such as this one which implies that I have poor English comprehension.

Repeating what you have already said doesn't answer the question. WHY does using indirect and extrapolated information automatically invalidate the conclusions of an experiment?

You seem to be saying that if there is incomplete information that no reliable conclusions can be drawn.
I and all the forensic scientists disagree with you. In fact, all scientists probably disagree with you in this. No field of science has all the information in its area of study. However, conclusions and reliable predictions can be made.

The link simply says that extrapolation was used, it didn't say that using extrapolation was an invalid method for determining decay curves. You said that and I simply asked you why.

If you thought for just a few seconds you would realize that no scientist requires all possible information about a subject before making conclusions about that subject.

Obtaining the ratio of parent to daughter isotope ratios doesn't require destroying all of the sample even for C-14 dating.

I don't know of anyone who says it does. With extrapolation, assumptions, and lack of direct observation come potential for error. It's no mystery - it's common sense.

Suppose I observe a car coming to a stop. The initial speed I observe is 27 M.P.H. and the final speed is 0. Can I assume the vehicle used to be traveling 900 M.P.H. or 900 million? I can easily extrapolate such speeds. A safer extrapolation would be 29 or 30. The greater the amount extrapolated, the less certain the conclusion.


I doubt any objective observer would share your opinion.

Let's see... we can take part of a sample, destroy & measure it, and assume the rest of the sample has the same ratio? The part which is actually measured is destroyed, right? When you pile up assumptions, you pile up potential for error.

What's untrue, is any claim that precision and certainty are involved when one is actually discussing the most tenuous and doubtful groups of conclusions readily available.

Of course the assumption that no flood happened is enough to categorized the whole business as rubbish. History, properly conducted, doesn't leave any room for such.

Then why does the extrapolation in the case of radioactive decay invalidate the conclusion that the age of the Earth is more than 4 billion years.

The only reason you would use the "safer" extrapolation is because you are not aware of many street safe cars that can travel faster than 120 miles per hour and there are few people that would travel much beyond the speed limit in most public roads. Add to that the likelihood that the street probably isn't made to allow 900 mph speeds for vehicular traffic and a person in control of the vehicle speed who could have changed the speed at any time. All of these are part of your "common sense" determination of the likely speed of the vehicle in the past. Even so, you can make no real estimate of the vehicle speed in the past because the person at the controls could have changed the speed at any time.

Radioactive decay does not have anything to change its rate of decay in any appreciable fashion. That is, unless you have knowledge of such a thing.

Other factors regarding radioactive decay are well known by physicists and geologists. That knowledge allows the extrapolation to be more accurate. It is not a wild-a** guess (WAG).

Yet you dismiss the conclusions of these scientists out of hand without any explanation other than they made some assumptions. Since you now say that reliable conclusions can be made using incomplete information, please explain why the conclusions about radioactive decay measurements as evidence of a 4-billion-year-old Earth are invalid.


I have to agree that more assumptions means more error. However, are those assumptions inaccurate to the point that 4 billion becomes 6000? How far off are the assumptions regarding the homogeneity of the rock samples? Can the geologists/physicists do anything to improve the likelihood that their assumption about their sample is more accurate?
Is their extrapolation of the long lived isotope decay curves inaccurate enough to account for the 6 orders of magnitude (1 million times) difference that is claimed by Young Earth Creationists? What indications do you have that radioactive decay curves for long lived isotopes are so inaccurate?

What evidence do you have that the conclusions are tenuous and doubtful? Has there been a change in radioactive decay rates in the past? If so, what is your evidence that this occurred?

Are the decay curves inaccurate for short lived isotopes? How inaccurate would they have to be to make the assumptions and extrapolations for the long lived isotope curves so far off that they are 6 orders of magnitude different than the actual decay?

If the assumptions and extrapolations for long-lived isotope decay curves are so inaccurate, why are they accurate in providing dates for things that we can verify through means other than radioactive decay?

What effect did the Flood have on radioactive isotope decay? If it sped the decay up by 6 orders of magnitude what kept the water from boiling off and the land from melting due to the increased energy given off by that increase in radioactive decay? What kept Noah and the animals alive through that increase in gamma radiation?

Lastly, if the stars weren't made until Day Four 6000 years ago, why can we see stars that are more than 6000 light-years away?

I believe the honest assessment is that we really don't know the age of the Earth.

Textbooks from 20 years ago, museums, and other sources all stated that the Earth was 200 million years old. Now, 20 years later, it's over 6 billion.

We also don't really know as much as we think about radioactive decay rates and times because so much of it is based on speculation.

To be intellectually honest, it seems that there are good arguments for both old and new universe, but considering that we usually find out that things are more complex than we originally believe, I tend to believe that both have some truth: http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

Popular science likes to wrap "truths" up in simple little packages that the public can digest. Unfortunately, this process of wrapping often spoils the contents of the message. Of course, those who have studied have learned that the control of information is the foundation to control of a society.



The unknowns are always found in the fringes of science that don't fit the current model. These unknowns eventually become a new paradigm. This is the foundation of String/M-Theory.

The inaccuracy in the extrapolation may not be only tied up on what we don't know, but more specifically, in the fact that the extrapolation is huge and based on only a very small part of the visible curve.

I'm not a young-Earth creationist, but I am very familiar with the vast assumptions that are made to support scientific conclusions. These vast assumptions lead to the evolution of scientific "knowledge" itself:

(1) 1900-2000: Mercury in amalgam fillings does not come out
(2) 2005: Mercury in amalgam fillings comes out but is safe
(3) 2008: Mercury in amalgam fillings is not safe

(1) 1900-2008: Mercury does not cause autism
(2) 2009: Mercury causes autism but we don't know where the mercury comes from



I don't dismiss the conclusions. I reposition them into the realm of "belief-based-on-assumption" instead of the realm of "known-fact". I do this because it is a more intellectually honest way of categorizing the integrity of the information.

You see, information/knowledge is worth money. Scientists don't get grants or win public acclaim for discovering possibilities. They make their money and get their grants by discovering facts.

To believe that politics does not affect science is fantastically naive.

It is sufficient to point out the history of science to realize its current assumptive behavior:

(1) Tomatoes are poisonous
(2) The world is 200-million years old
(3) Phenylalanine in NutraSweet is safe
(4) Food irradiation does not change its nutritional properties
(5) St. John's Wort has not effect on depression
(6) and on and on...



Again, I have to remind you that 20 years ago, the Earth was 200-million years old.

10 years ago, amalgam fillings were safe. All dentists knew that. It was taught in dental school.

2 years ago BIS plastics were complete safe.

5 years ago, Teflon was perfectly safe to cook on.

2 years ago, the chlorine in Splenda was harmless.

8 years ago, MSG had no harmful effects on humans.

100 years ago, Piltdown man was a very significant discovery that nearly proved evolution to be true. (Not surprisingly, Wikipedia now downplays this discovery.)

...and on and on...



It is easy to make large mistakes when extrapolations are made extending observations beyond a ratio of 100-million-to-one.



Again, I refer you to my belief:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

Why pretend the "curve" is the only potential source of error? Anyone qualified to discuss the subject knows there are several others.

In English, 'only' refers to a single thing. You list two reasons as the "only reason", and then continue on. Are you incompetent to communicate in English, or was 'only' thrown in for some ulterior reason, like propaganda (the only one that comes to mind).

You assume there is a person in control. The sillier the speed I choose to imagine the car was traveling in the past, the more likely I am to be wrong.

It changes all the time. Decay isn't regular tick-tock, tick-tock like a clock. It is never steady. It proceeds in bursts, halts, and everything in between. They count the average rate over time, supposedly to the best of their ability.


What other factors? They still don't know the cause.

As verified by? Not history, that's for sure.

I can go into more detail when I choose. Most of the assumptions are known to be dubious, if not outright false.

I decline to do so at this time.

4 billion? What about 3.5 billion? What about 6 billion?

If they do, will your camp not attack their character and their livelihood? Pattern recognition is a key element in most sciences.

Again, you pretend the decay "curve" is the only problem. Problems have a way of compounding, as most folks know.

See what I just got done explaining, and then see how it matches with the definitions of 'tenuous' and 'doubtful'. It only takes one single false assumption introduced anywhere in a chain of reasoning to produce a false result. Has practice taught you nothing?

Yes. You have google. I have better ways to spend my time.

Not much at all. Do you not know how exponential equasions work? Two to the fourth power is 16. Ten to the fourth power is 10,000. Big difference. Two is only eight removed from ten, but raising them only to the fourth power results in a difference of 9,984!

If you mean events verified by history, your claim is absolutely false. Never have they been tested successfully against anything of a known date.

If by "other means" you mean the imagined "time it would take for x to evolve into y", big deal. That's exactly what these "techniques" were invented to do.

Utter nonsense. Either get educated or quit playing stupid, whatever applies.

Why not? Until you disclose all your assumptions, you don't even have an objection.

The flip side to assumptions is this: those who don't make the same assumptions need not be concerned. Only if I employ an assumption myself, and then deny it's implications am I inconsistent. So long as I never employ a given assumption in any of my reasoning, you have no call to fault me.

If you think you do, we might as well not beat around the bush. Just assume my God doesn't exist, and then fault me for failing to make the same assumption.

The only obligation is for one to always apply the same group of assumptions uniformly in one's reasoning. I can do it; the evolutionist cannot.

This quote is followed by an almost word-for-word reiteration of your previous unsupported claims.

I will concede that the age of the Earth claims by physicists and geologists cannot be exact. I never said it was exact.

How far off do their assumptions (which you claim are wild assumptions) make their estimates? 1 order of magnitude? 2? 6?

What qualifies you to determine that their assumptions are "wild"?

What is it about their assumption that radioactive decay follows a particular pattern, observed in short-lived isotope decay, that makes it a wildly inaccurate assumption?

Common sense...

Which happens to be the same thing that qualifies me to determine that injecting children and infants with methylmercury—a strong neurotoxin—is a bad idea.

Common sense also happens to be the same thing that qualifies me to determine that mercury offgassing from amalgam fillings was ruining my health when doctor after doctor after doctor seem incapable to diagnose the problem in so many people that I've spoken with. (My Mercury Story.)

You see, people are sheep, this includes doctors and lawyers and scientists and other professionals. They do what they are told; They believe what they are told; They are generally obedient.

It is those who develop common sense that break people from the bonds of stupidity, conformity, and tyranny.


"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."

—D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times,
England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

It is unusual to respond to posts which need to be removed, but I did desire to thank Linear for part of the post.

Thanks for the lead. I had encountered a couple of claims about Vesuvius in the past, but was unable to find any confirmation whatsoever, and none was ever provided before.

The story is dubious for a few reasons, not the least of which is the lack of publicity.

The link (which I bookmarked) says

Such an important innovation, if valid, would be quite newsworthy, and should be easy to track down. If it really works, we would expect it to be used left & right. This is dated 1997, and we still do not hear of the technique being used to "confirm" any of the other dates it surely could. I'm confident I can eventually discover how come the "scientific community" itself is so reluctant to employ this "holy grail".

My investigation has only begun, and already I notice this Mission Statement from entity conducting the test(s).

http://www.bgc.org/


It is good when sources are open about their biases and goals. I don't think we need to add bold to that number. It stands right out on its own.

The post was removed for the following text, which is in violation of current forum rules.

Common sense, COMMON SENSE fer cryin' out loud tells each and every person who's even capable of reading this that conclusions are contingent upon the validity of their underlying assumptions. Anyone who employs the term 'if' understands the principle of contingency.

Yet we see it not only assumed that I and the general readership are too stupid to grasp contingency, but it is falsely claimed I have made an assertion contrary thereunto.

The decision to remove the post is subject to review by the forum staff, and the post may be reinstated.

Have you not implied the same thing to others?

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ub...amp;Main=7086&Number=44063#Post44063

Quote

Not one of those statements was a question. You did take English in high school didn't you?

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44063&page=9

My post was removed because that you claim that I said you were not supporting your assertion that "conclusions are contingent upon the validity of their underlying assumptions"? That is not the assertion that I am contesting. You imply by your statements regarding radioactive decay curves that the assumption by physicists are invalid. I asked you to show what it is about those assumptions that make them invalid. Where did you EVER show that the assumptions were invalid. If you cannot point to a post where you produced some relevant evidence that the assumptions were invalid, then my claim that you are not supporting your assertion is true and my post should be reinstated.

So far, you have claimed that the assumptions used in determining radioactive decay curves cause those curves and the radiometric dating of rock to be invalid.

You have also indicated that accurate conclusions can be drawn without all information (using assumptions, extrapolations)

You have indicated that you believe it is the validity of the assumptions that determines the validity of the conclusions drawn using those assumptions.

So, what is it about the assumptions of physicists concerning radioactive decay that makes them invalid enough to cause a 6 orders of magnitude error in the conclusions regarding decay rates of long-lived isotopes?

How did you know this? Was it some kind inborn knowledge...like instinct?
I contend that it isn't common sense at all, it's knowledge from studying that let you know that this form of methylmercury is dangerous. So do you have the knowledge about radioactive decay to determine if the assumptions by physicists are so wildly inaccurate that they cannot even be in the ballpark in determining how long-lived isotopes decay?

Common sense told you that amalgams have mercury offgassing? You mean that you just had health problems that doctors couldn't diagnose and you just sat in your room one day and said "of course! Mercury offgassing!!!" No research, now reading of websites about mercury amalgams...just you and your common sense?

Do you believe that these physicists determined that the radioactive decay follows exponential decay curves because they were told to do so? What evidence do you have to support this contention...letters?, post-a-notes?, emails?, video?, confessions by dying Master Masons?

Oh right! Your common sense.

Those poor stupid, conforming physicists knuckling under to the tyrannical rule of the The Powerful Elite.

I'll ask you the same question, again.

So, what is it about the assumptions of physicists concerning radioactive decay that makes them invalid enough to cause a 6 orders of magnitude error in the conclusions regarding decay rates of long-lived isotopes?

Your example does not support your position.

A better example would be this:

"We know mercury is toxic to humans, so common sense says that it does not magically become non-toxic when it's injected into humans."

Likewise, common sense says that the extrapolation you believe is accurate (have faith in) has not been observed. It is based on two obvious assumptions:

(1) All elements follow the same decay curve, and

(2) The decay rates of all elements cannot be affected by external conditions.

As much as you want to accept these as truth, the fact is, you can only accept them by faith because they have not been observed.

Not only that, but these beliefs are based on huge extrapolations.

For example, we have witnessed very tiny portions of the decay curve below drawn in red and highlighted by a red circle, yet, your extrapolations predict that the curve looks like the on drawn in black.



The extrapolation may or may not be true. We don't really know, and since we don't really know, we should be honest about the fact that we don't really know.



Common sense is a method of making logical deduction based on information, so yes, basic information has to be available just as wood must be available to make furniture.

The information I had was that mercury is a toxic poison. Nearly everyone knows this. The new information I acquired that caused me to explore the possibility that mercury was causing my 17 physical symptoms is that a girl (Amy) told me that amalgam fillings contain mercury. Formerly, I didn't know that.

So, I combined that information with this information:

The mouth is a volatile environment, both chemically and physically. If you have something in there that's made of metal, it's probably going to leak or offgas to some extent.

With this combination of information, I took to the internet to see if any other people have had experiences where they had similar symptoms to mine that went away after their amalgam fillings were removed.

Yes, there were people who had similar symptoms to mine that went away after their fillings were removed.

So, I called the office of Dr. Hal Huggins (I found out about him while doing my internet research) and asked the receptionist if they knew what I should do. She said to buy Hal's book so I understand what I'm getting into and how to deal with it, including the risks. She said that they would send me a list of dentists that are trained in safe amalgam removal in my area.

This is a process of putting information together and drawing conclusions and then testing conclusions to a reasonable amount and then taking action...

Common sense in action.

Isn't it interesting that doctors have been wrestling with dozens of diseases for decades that scientific literature knows are caused by mercury, yet, the vast majority of doctors don't know this. That's right, they don't know their own literature.

How is it that I—having no PhD or Master's Degree or even any formal training in medicine or anatomy or physics or chemistry—know this and am able to fix myself when 99.9% (a conservative estimate) of doctors cannot?

Answer:

Common sense.



Of course.

The first scientists made some preliminary discoveries, and the rest were taught what to believe.

People who pay $125,000-plus for an education expect—actually assume—that they are being taught up-to-date, state-of-the-art information.

Well guess what.

They are making a pretty big assumption right from the start. The fact is, most of their training conditions them for managing sickness and disease using pharmaceutical drugs rather than solving problems.

I've been alive long enough to know that there are very few true problem solvers left in the world. Most people just do what they're told.



If Amy has continued listening to her doctors, she'd probably be dead now. If I had followed that path, I would probably be dead too.

Instead, we rose to the occasion and began applying common sense to our illnesses and solved them in days/months when multiple doctors working on the same problem with diagnostic tests, medical personnel and expensive degrees could not do in 5 years.

Yes LinearAQ, as astounding as it is, regardless of the amount of "education" one has, people still have faith in ridiculous claims, like the safety of amalgam fillings, mercury-laced vaccines, and NutraSweet.

And why do they do this?

Because they are told to.

The extrapolation of the curve is based on the observations of short-lived isotope decay curves and the statistical analysis of how radioactive decay works.

Your contention that we cannot know anything about what has not been observed is problematic.

What do we do about unwitnessed crimes? If we cannot assume that the laws of physics as we see them now applied 50,000 years ago, then we cannot assume that they applied 5 days ago.

Also, how can we know that we can trust the witnesses, if we cannot verify their story in some other fashion, such as physical evidence?

Can you give me an example of one that does not?

Can you provide an external condition that will appreciably affect the decay rate of any radioactive element?

I agree that these are the assumptions of the physicists studying and utilizing radioactive decay. You have not provided any compelling reason for those assumptions to be considered false.

Here is another reason for you to consider them to be good assumptions. All determined half lives for long lived isotopes yield approximately the same age of the earth when the analysis is performed on old volcanic rocks. If the decay rates of long-lived isotopes may not follow the same decay curve and the rates may have been different in the past, why do the repeatable experiments show such close alignment in dates between different long-lived isotopes?

Nevertheless, you should know that what I am saying is true, and that is, that:

(1) Scientists have not observed or measured these long decay curves, and

(2) Scientists have only witnessed a very, very small portion of these long decay curves and are making educated guesses about the remainder of the curve, and

(3) Scientists are working under the assumption that nothing affects the rate of decay.

The reason I am skeptical about blindly accepting what scientists say about these things is because we have all been lied to for so long about so many other things. I learned after entering this field (and before, being in the political field) that information is distorted, lied about, and invented all the time to achieve some end that is in the interest of big business.

When I say "all the time", I mean daily.

Because you don't share this experience, you are where I was 25 years ago, that is, you are blinding having faith in people and agendas that you know nothing about.

For example, someone may say that this dating method says that rock "A" is 6 billion years old, but you don't know that person. You don't know their interests or their agenda. You don't know if they have integrity.

Furthermore, I have heard lectures from numerous paleontologists and scientists from other disciplines that tell it like it is. They say that numbers related to the dating of rocks has been severely manipulated to make things look older than they are.

I have personally witnessed corruption and have heard numerous first-hand accounts, even from a mainstream nightly-news producer, that corruption and lies are the norm today in politics and science.

You see, to believe what you believe, you are having a lot of blind faith in people you don't know and in things you know nothing about.

I prefer to have strong evidence backing up what I believe in.

God never expects anyone to put faith in Him with first observing the evidence of His ability (strength) and reliability (purity/integrity).



Excellent. So we agree here.



(1) They are unobserved, and

(2) They assume that all decay curves are identical, and

(3) They assume that no external conditions affect decay rates.

My unwillingness to blindly accept their conclusion is because it contains too many assumptions.



They show close alignment because:

(1) We are measuring only a very small part of the decay curves. If there is even a minute variation, the long-term affect of the curve will be profound.

(2) We are blindly believing that these values are in alignment. Some scientists have stated that measurements and data are being fabricated. Who is telling the truth?

If ever there was a time in history that we should be thinking critically, it is now.


"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."

—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

So you discount anything that is unobserved? Show me any documented cases of increases of mercury in children who have been vaccinated.

Show me the documentation of the increase in mercury within anyone who has had amalgam fillings.

Show me documentation of the planting of explosives in the WTC towers.

Name one decay curve that is does not follow the exponential decay paradigm.

Name one condition that substantially affects radioactive decay rates.

Just a heads-up, Russ. A strict interpretation of the proposed ruleset (the EFT rules) would mean content like this is in violation.

"Clear cases of misrepresentation, quoting out of context, or unsubstantiated hearsay. "

Obviously it's the last one. Reporting what others have told you is hearsay.


I don't entirely agree with the philosophy of having an overly strict ruleset, and bending rules or frequently overlooking infractions. It is too hard for me to distinguish such a process from selective enforcement. I do understand the reasoning, and the legitimate problems it attempts to deal with; but I think there must be a better way. I cannot say subjectivity can be entirely removed from the process - haven't worked it out yet, and it looks doubtful. It must still be minimized as a matter of ethics and moral obligation.

I may have found one. I say "may" because the obvious interpretation of the data is that it is just that: a variation in the rate of decay. Now they do have an alternative interpretation: "It is a more accurate measurement".
This PDF link

http://nd2007.edpsciences.org/index...rticles/ndata/pdf/2007/01/ndata07440.pdf

says

We have three rates. Calling the newest one a "more accurate" measurement is assuming... well it's assuming a few things.

The new measurement is outside the stated margins of error of the other two. By the standards of some who have posted on this forum, they are calling the other scientists liars. By any standard, they're saying that not only were the old measurements inaccurate - the scientists who made them miscalculated (or misreported) the margins of error.

It's also assuming that which some seek to prove: that the rate hasn't actually changed. If the rate did change, how would anyone ever find out? Not by means of this reasoning!

So, what's the most reasonable interpretation?

Thanks for the heads up.

In this case, the hearsay was from experts, and since the fields we speak about often deal with "what experts say", it seems reasonable for people to make reference to what they say.

So, perhaps in this type of situation, hearsay would be understandable.

It depends on the situation. Obviously, judgement calls have to be made as to how the evidence supports the hypothesis.

The problem with judgement calls is that people have a hard time not being biased. Sometimes, that bias is caused by bribes of one form or another (NutraSweet phenalyanine study for example). Sometimes there are job threats or even social pressure.



The problem with studies that show what you are asking for is that the way mercury was measured was faulty, and when you consider what the researchers already knew about the process of mercury excretion, it's obvious that the study outcome was predetermined. Unfortunately, I don't have permission to show you the clip of Dr. Haley explaining how this happened.

Nevertheless, this is just another example of corruption and "science".



We don't know of any, but common sense says this: If explosives took down the buildings, then they must have been planted at some time.



I can't because the data is not yet complete for many of the decay curves, especially the long ones, which, of course, are the ones that we're interested in when examining the age of the Earth.

Again, we don't know if the curves are exponential (to say they are is an assumption) and we don't know if there are other factors that existed that changed the decay rates.



Human corruption.

Again, there is a large agenda behind the promotion of evolution. This is why it is being used as a social control.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0026


"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."

—G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

http://www.healing-arts.org/childre...esearch/thimerosalinvaccinationslink.htm

Quote

Stajeck and Lopez (Journal of Pediatrics, 2000) have shown mercury in the blood of infants at birth prior to the hepatitis B injections. After the vaccine, the levels rose in the blood of the infants tested. In some preterm infants there were levels that measured ten times that seen in term infants. The bile production is minimal in infants, making it more difficult for metals to be cleared from the body. When added to a vaccine, the metals are even more dangerous because the vaccines trigger immune reactions that can increase the permeability of the gastrointestinal tract and blood brain barrier.

For more information, studies/sources, click the link above.





MERCURY FILLINGS BANNED IN NORWAY

Quote

Research has shown that dentists have high double the number of brain tumours accompanied by high concentrations of body mercury (British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1991; 48: 729-34).

Quote

The World Health Organization has found that the average individual could absorb as much as 120 micrograms of mercury per day from their amalgam fillings, which is considered a toxic dose.

Quote

Current research suggests that mercury vapour from fillings may be one of the predominant underlying causes of a broad spectrum of conditions, ranging from gum disease, migraine, headaches, poor memory, depression, anxiety, mental lethargy, chronic fatigue, growth, allergies such as eczema and asthma, and sensitivity reactions to food and inhalants, to rheumatism, arthritis, backache, kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and other neurological disorders.

It is about getting a more accurate measurement since the problem was about instrument inaccuracy due to effects from very short-lived isotope decay interfering with the instrument readings.


You read the article...what were they assuming? Please, expose their duplicity by being detailed in your criticism.

No. Just wrong. Those scientists doing the new measurements never stated that the previous scientists were knowingly putting down false measurements.

If the instruments or techniques get more accurate then the previous measurements can be thrown out as inaccurate. Surely, you don't believe that the ability to accurately measure things has always been as precise as it is today.

Aside from the fact that the article points to the source of the inaccuracy and other experimenters can use the details of the research to recreate the two measurements.

That other short-lived isotopes caused problems with the original readings.

Additionally, the radioactive decay was still shown to be on an exponential curve.

And how was it solved, in your version of the story? Everyone had the same problem, did they not? It didn't up & go away.

This is hardly the only problem.

Did you miss the discussions of tables 4 & 5? The measurements they obtained for this study weren't exactly consistent, and they had to find a way to deal with that as well.

The word uncertainly is used frequently. How many uncertainty issues did they have in all? Well, the link is there for anyone who'd like to count.


You read the article too. I suppose the duplicity issue is yours, since you're the one reporting it.

And here's a clue about assumptions: every time they acknowledge uncertainty, they have to make a guess (an assumption) in order to resolve it. You might have another read, keeping that in mind.

Actually, they dont always have to make a guess; they could factor the uncertainties into their cumulative result. Of course, doing that would balloon their "margin of error" up to gargantuan size.

It is not. I'm certain you are aware of the standard(s) I'm talking about. Any disagreement = "calling them all liars". More than one evolutionist has employed it. Have you?

If the new measurement fell within the stated margin of error of the old measurement, one could claim they were simply refining what was already known. They don't. The new measurements are in conflict with the others. If you read the link, they make it pretty clear.


Evononsense. You can't recreate the measurements. Are you so ill-informed as to believe decay is not a one-way process? The samples they measured are gone!

The article points to several potential sources of inaccuracy. This sentence in the conclusion is noteworthy.

4.5%, if extrapolated exponentially, adds up pretty fast. And ± 0.01 h is dwarfed by 4.5%.

Really? Did you notice how they got around the "problem" associated with some of the older estimates? They postponed taking measurements in order to allow time for the "shorter-lived" isotopes (which might interfere) to decay. They omitted direct measurement of the early decay of 92Sr. This is not how one confirms the "decay curve". Furthermore, they assume it in their calculations at least once. (For those who don't reason in circles) this is not how confirmation is obtained.

To the logical mind, you can't have it both ways. Either the stated margins of error are bogus, or the rate changes from measurement to measurement. This is true even of the direct measurements they took for this very study.