|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
hose are two cases here but I think we can take on SN1987A... not knowing this in particular... does this prove the age of the universe? Please specify... No, but far less is required to meet your challenge. Your claims are that 1) nothing shows the universe to be greater than 6000 years old and 2) that there are alternate cosmological explanations that provide a more plausible age of less than or equal 6000 years. Not just an alternate, a more plausible explanation. I will be challenging you on every single aspect of your claims. The facts related to SN1987A do what is required; namely, establish that the age of the universe is greater than 6000 years with a high degree of certainty. Your task is to show that you have a cosmological explanation that is more plausible than the currently accepted explanation and further that SN1987a does not actually show that the universe is older than 6000 years. Ditto with the measured age of the moon if we get that far. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3440 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
RAZD is great, but the assumption is that one ring equals one year (not certain) and dendrochronology also needs a accurate count of ring somewhat debatable.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...the assumption is that one ring equals one year (not certain) and dendrochronology also needs a accurate count of ring somewhat debatable. The article you cited concludes: Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
... but the assumption is that one ring equals one year (not certain) ...
How certain do you need to be? Can you give us an idea of the total error in irregular ring growth in trees? Some statistics would be good to support your position.
... and dendrochronology also needs a accurate count of ring somewhat debatable.
Okay, show us the error. Give us some kind of support for you skepticism. As a YEC I'm sure you are skeptical of the counting process. The numbers can get really big. But my main question is, if you are so skeptical of annual ring growth and the ability of people to count them, do you apply the same degree of skepticism to your own dating methods? Are you sure that a count of generations in the Bible is accurate? Are you certain that all generations are included? Remember, it isn't actually written in the Bible that the earth was formed 6ky ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD is great, but the assumption is that one ring equals one year (not certain) and dendrochronology also needs a accurate count of ring somewhat debatable. And I'll be happy to debate it on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 Curiously, I don't think that site supports what you think it does ...
quote: Bold added. So thanks, I'll be happy to add them to my list of references. AND I have other evidence that shows how accurate tree-ring counting is. See also the evidence that Lake Suigetsu varves accurately record annual layer events and that gets back to the limits of 14C dating. Then there are ice layers ... Such fun. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined:
|
There are plenty of objects in the universe that place lower limits on the age of the universe itself. SN 1987A is one example. And of course we also have dates for local solar system objects like the moon and meteors that indicate ages of 4 billion years and greater. Since those objects are within our vicinity, 'cosmological time-slowing' is not viable explanation. You could add the ages of asteroid families, the rotation of asteroids, and the H-R diagrams of star clusters. The H-R diagrams of globular clusters yield ages of up to 12.7 billion years, and such well-known star clusters as the Hyades and Praesepe are hundreds of millions of years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3440 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: When Hubble proposed that the redshift is proportional to distance, it was under the assumption of no inflation. In an arbitrary inflation period time is not distance related.
quote: If there is a good mathematician in the house maybe they can explain the context for the mathematical explanation given in this article. I do not have the mathematical background for that. The trouble is not worth the benefit of figuring the particulars out. Inflation is kind of like telling Alice in wonderland how much potion to drink to grow ten feet tall. In essence, Hubble’s relationship works fine now but did not during inflation. The CMB isotropy shows matter had a much closer distribution than can be explained by the estimated age of the universe so BB had to have inflation. With an arbitrary inflation current red shifts may or may not predict current distances (I can explain this latter), but do not prove anything about how long it took for matter to reach those distances, that only relies on other assumptions that have empirical problems. In other words the distance of SN1987A proves noting of how old the universe is by its current distance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So, what is the purpose of all these articles you are citing?
Are you trying to tell us the Earth is only 6000 years old?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
zaius137 writes: If there is a good mathematician in the house maybe they can explain the context for the mathematical explanation given in this article. I do not have the mathematical background for that. just popping in here to say that you're making a pretty large tactical error here; you're opening up several fronts but you have neither the weaponry nor the staff to do it. You're also exposing the great weaknesses of attempting a scientific attack on science - you need to know all of it. You need to be a proper expert in several fields of biology and genetics, palaeontology, geology, physics and astronomy and so on. You think you're smart enough to wing it, but you ain't - there are people here who do it for a living and they specialise. That and the fact that ALL the various branches of science point to a very old earth - it's not enough to attempt to cast doubt on - say dendrochronology - you also have to deal with radio dating, the fossil record and geology. You have to explain why they all reconcile and back each other up - and in specific, evidenced-based terms. No vague hand waving. Good luck with all that.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
When Hubble proposed that the redshift is proportional to distance, it was under the assumption of no inflation. In an arbitrary inflation period time is not distance . How is the distance to SN1987a established? What if we have determined the distance to SN1987a independent of red shift measurements? Because that's exactly what we are able to do. Why are you posting BS theories without looking up the facts first?
In other words the distance of SN1987A proves noting of how old the universe is by its current distance. You've just revealed that you have no idea what you are talking about. The issue is not just the distance to the current position of SN1987a. It is instead the data associated with the supernova explosion that occurred at that distance that sets a lower limit on the age of the universe. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
PaulK writes: marc9000 writes: Well no, I never mentioned germ theory, and I don't even believe in the Book of Mormon. I was just referring to the general way that the scientific community has always gone after Christianity, particularly the book of Genesis. In other words "respecting spirituality" only refers to respecting YOUR beliefs. I'm not the only one who believes in the book of Genesis.
Science has not especially gone after Christianity. A branch of Christianity (to use a loose definition of Christianity) is going after science because it objects to the discoveries science has made. So it's your belief, that the following popular books for example, are all defensive in nature?
quote: Let's have a look at just one, Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation"; (from wikipedia)
quote: No implication there in any way that the book is a response to any recent activity by Christian organizations.
quote: That's all offence towards all of what Christianity has always been. Christianity has always been consistent in what it's views are on morality. The recent changes in the conflicts between Christianity and the scientific community have come as a result of changes in philosophy on the part of science - condom use, stem cell research, cloning, gay marriage, global warming etc. Claims that the scientific community is only defensively reacting to changes in Christianity is easily refuted.
I think we can say that the idea that if scientists did not "dismiss spirituality" they would give special respect to YOUR views is so obviously false that even you can see it. There's a difference between "special respect" and the OFFENSIVE attacks on Genesis, that are obviously put fourth in all the books above, and countless "scientific" websites like talkorigins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The scientific community has not "gone after" Christianity, or any other religion. If you think it has then cite a few scientific papers that "go after" Christianity. The scientific community doesn't go after it with scientific papers, it goes after it in the public realm, in education, it seeks to "weaken the hold of religion" among the general public, because morality interferes with so much it wants to do, to increase its political power.
The truth is that Christian fundamentalists have "gone after" and are still going after science education with claims that Genesis is a scientifically accurate version of events and with demands that it should be taught in public school science classrooms. In the face of these claims and demands, explaining how Genesis is not a scientifically accurate version of events is not "going after" Christianity. In just about any conflict, both sides will claim that the other side "started it". If you want to claim that it's all religions fault that science is trying to "weaken the hold of religion", that's fine, but the evidence isn't on your side. The scientific community's enthusiasm in trying to invalidate the book of Genesis harmonizes with all the very recent immoral and big government promoting things it seeks to increase its own power and financial interests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
There's a difference between "special respect" and the OFFENSIVE attacks on Genesis, that are obviously put fourth in all the books above, and countless "scientific" websites like talkorigins. If it is wrong it is wrong, and no amount of belief can change that. And if it is demonstrably wrong, there is no need for respect, special or otherwise.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: But I'm still not convinced that "spirituality" is the proper word for anything that can be falsified or tested. This make no sense as a response to what I actually said, most of which you left out. I followed that sentence with, "For atheists and agnostics I imagine spiritual things would be love, friendship, trust, awe and so forth." I didn't say anything about spirituality involving falsification or testing, nor did I mention any qualities that involve falsification or testing. No one has claimed or is claiming that spirituality is a scientifically verifiable quality, and it would be dishonest to imply that anyone has. What would be honest would be a response to what was actually said. I have 9 opponents in this thread so far. If I was on trial, sitting on the witness stand, I suppose I'd be required to make precise responses to each question asked, but I doubt if there'd be nine or more hammers. But I'm not on trial, I'm trying to make points that are something different than extreme left political talking points of the scientific community. If all I did was answer questions that often require long, drawn out answers that go down endless rabbit trails, I wouldn't be able to make those points. Often I'll respond to you in a blend of what you and someone else (or several others) have said. If you want to call that dishonest, that's almost as funny as claiming that the scientific community's attacks on Christianity is all defensive in nature. My reason for saying that "I'm not convinced spirituality is the proper word for anything that can be falsified or tested" is a way to cut through all the rabbit trails and get to my point so that I can....maybe finish up! That should make you happy.
Books like these are responses to fundamentalist Christian attacks on science and science education. When Christian fundamentalism ceases these attacks the responses will also cease. Sure, then science becomes god! Global warming and abortion are the new morality. As you probably noticed from the last election, it's going to take a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
If it is wrong it is wrong, and no amount of belief can change that. How about the "spirituality" of atheists and the scientific community, that I've just been introduced to in this thread? Does their spirituality have a more authoritative position on determining what is right?
And if it is demonstrably wrong, there is no need for respect, special or otherwise. Immorality is often demonstrable wrong, big government is often demonstrably wrong. Why should Christianity respect brand new scientific attempts to justify increasing their own power and influence?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024