Creation vs. Evolution

[marke]

Do you know if any of those faithful Christian scientists that dissent from the RATE conclusions have made clear why they don’t accept the RATE studies?

I have talked with maybe hundreds of people who disagree with RATE and some of them are no doubt Christians. However, I cannot remember any of them making their religion an issue in the discussion. I have read articles related to RATE from both sides and remain convinced the RATE group holds the best scientific position on the debates that I have either read or been personally involved with.

 

[redfern]

… You seem to confuse 'distance' and 'time'. They are two separate things.

Then you now have a pristine opportunity to show that I don’t understand the elements of what seems to be a simple problem in physics. Please show me where I am in error,

 

[redfern]

I have talked with maybe hundreds of people who disagree with RATE and some of them are no doubt Christians. However, I cannot remember any of them making their religion an issue in the discussion. I have read articles related to RATE from both sides and remain convinced the RATE group holds the best scientific position on the debates that I have either read or been personally involved with.

The only part of the RATE study that I have much acquaintance with is their work dealing with Carbon-14 dating. Is that something you have any detailed information on (hopefully from both the pro and anti-RATE sides of the issue)?

 

[marke]

The only part of the RATE study that I have much acquaintance with is their work dealing with Carbon-14 dating. Is that something you have any detailed information on (hopefully from both the pro and anti-RATE sides of the issue)?

I have some experience dealing with that, but I do not know how to evaluate the level of my experience with the level of the experience of others here.

 

[Stripe]

If I understand your point, anything that would eliminate oceanic friction would result in the tidal bulge being bigger, and thus exert a stronger pull on the moon.

Not exactly, but I think close enough.

Removal of land masses would allow tidal bulges in their place, not exactly "bigger," just more prevalent.

I don’t see where you account for the equally important part that friction plays – in determining the location of the tidal bulge.

Friction doesn't play an "equally important" role. It's kinda incidental.

It does cause the offset of the bulge, but as you term it, more friction would lead to less bulge. The primary factor is gravity.

So let’s look at the open ocean (no land interference) case – low friction means big bulge, but low friction means bulge forms rapidly closer to the cislunar point. Bigger bulge, but less offset to affect the moon’s orbit. Which effect is most significant?

At a guess, I would say the two effects pretty much cancel. If there was no land, there would still be an offset bulge driving lunar recession. Friction wouldn't see the bulge offset by as much as it is in today's conditions, but that would be canceled somewhat by the bulge always being in play.

And the Darwinist save has evolved since last time I had this discussion. Previously, they were using friction in a very different manner, describing it in terms of how it slowed the Earth's rotation, not how it drove bulge offset.

The evolved save has more merit.

I take this to mean you have actually read them.

I've read others. Those ones cost money. I read the abstracts, which wasn't much help.

People who are moderately competent in physics might recognize yet another interesting aspect to this problem. How about when the moon is directly above large land masses, such as when it crosses directly over huge swaths of Africa or South America? No ocean there for a tidal bulge to form, yet on the opposite side of the world, the “opposing tidal bulge” (which actually acts to retard the moon’s orbit) forms. I‘ll let you cogitate on that one, unless you feel up to commenting on it.

It's a good point. That would slow down lunar recession, but the opposite situation would also apply — a continent on the other side and none on the near side would speed up recession. There are many questions surrounding this issue. I have one over the accuracy of the measured rate of recession.

The point is that Dr Brown's math is appropriate and accurate and the challenge is sensible. What it calls for is reasoned discussion, not the typical Darwinist nonsense.

Thanks for engaging. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

Yes, I think so. I don't know any personally, but I imagine they number in the thousands.

So you couldn't find a paper that adhered to the best practices then? That doesn't surprise me.

Incidentally, your linked page is full of unproven assertions about how the science of some, with misrepresentations errors in most paragraphs as if the purpose is to persuade the uneducated not scientists.

Try this:
" So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.

However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. "

Every night astronomers observe the light curves of supernovae over time. The decay of the fireball is dominated by the decay of an isotope of nickel, iirc, and the half life is the same no matter how far the light has traveled. This means that the decay rates have been constant for over ten billion years unless you invoke a speed of light change miracle to exactly compensate. There are similar observations the verify the constancy of the speed of light, also, so such a claim would be foolish.

The dating claims you make are not supported be good science, since they are done people who want to misrepresent the data. It is dishonest - why do YOU think they didn't follow best practice? Could it be they didn't want an accurate answer, or was it just because there are no scientists trained in the methods? It is a choice of incompetence or dishonesty. Which is it?

 

[gcthomas]

If uranium salts are dissolved by groundwater then accurate date testing using uranium is impossible.

Once the initial mineralisation has happened, then the bone porosity reduced to zero, like when water chalks up the pipes. The clock starts when the water stops percolating through the bone. The dates also match other dating methods well, verifying the method.

 

[gcthomas]

Would you prefer a paper with atheistic bias or with Christian bias?

One that specifies the protocols used would be good.

 

[Caino]

What does the mention of non-canonical books in the Bible have to do with God's ability to communicate accurately to men through the written word?

The written word is always conditioned by mans limitations. That's why there are imperfections in the scripture, and we should expect that. Only God is perfection.

 

[Caino]

Except those whom He does not love. Psalm 10:3.

See the parable of the prodigal Son.

 

[Caino]

Your supposed insight into spiritual truth is, by your own testimony, "just a little common sense" and assumptions?

Spiritual truth and the self important, exaggerated histories of those who reject Christ are two different things. In the age of the writing or rewriting of Mosses original books, they didn't know anything about the origins of life, the earth, disease, science etc. The Hebrew priest were writing a religious narrative for the scattered, Israelite audience. After the return to Israel later generations of holy men transformed the books into "the Word of God."

The holy books are helpful for spiritual instruction but should not be taken as serious history. The Hebrew holy men used stories already in existence in Mesipotamia when converting their secular history into a miraculous story.

 

[redfern]

Friction doesn't play an "equally important" role. It's kinda incidental.

If friction is not a prominent factor in why the tidal bulge is misaligned, then specifically what is the reason it is misaligned? Why isn’t the bulge directly under the moon, where the moon’s gravity is felt the strongest?

The primary factor is gravity.

Gravity is indeed the force that transfers energy from the earth to the moon. But HOW MUCH energy is transferred depends on the size of the tidal bulge and the direction between the tidal bulge and the moon’s orbital motion. Gravity is going be there anyway, even in the case of Brown’s Figure 248, where the tidal bulges are directly in line with the moon. In fact that is when the gravity between the bulges and the moon would be at a maximum, yet in that case no energy would is added to the moon’s orbit. So the primary factor in determining how fast the energy gets transferred is whatever mechanism controls the location and size of the tidal bulge.

And the Darwinist save has evolved since last time I had this discussion. Previously, they were using friction in a very different manner, describing it in terms of how it slowed the Earth's rotation, not how it drove bulge offset.

You’ll have to take that up with that mysterious “Darwinist” species you refer to. If you have any human making the claim you mention, then send them my way.

The evolved save has more merit.

The basics of how angular momentum is transferred to the moon has been understood since long before you were born.

I've read others. Those ones cost money. I read the abstracts, which wasn't much help.

Great. Tell me the title, date, journal, and authors of the ones you have read. I will gladly look in them and see what factors they consider in dealing with how fast the moon is receding.

The point is that Dr Brown's math is appropriate and accurate and the challenge is sensible.

A modestly competent physics student using first principles should be able to derive the equations that Mr. Brown uses. I am aware of at least two other creationists who promote the same 1.2 bya moon age figure, and I am pretty sure they relied on just about the same math as Mr. Brown came up with.

But as you have acknowledged, there are geophysical factors that can materially alter the tidal bulge geometry and position, and I fail to see that accounted for in Mr. Brown’s calculations.

 

[redfern]

Marke, I am trying to reconcile these posts:

It appears that many secularists deliberately reject the findings of the RATE Group, although they cannot scientifically falsify the Group's findings. There seems little doubt that such rejections are theologically based and not scientifically based.

Your specifying “secularists” was the reason I asked

Marke, are there faithful Christian scientists who reject the findings of the RATE group?

And you responded:

Yes, I think so. I don't know any personally, but I imagine they number in the thousands.

So there are probably thousands who are not secularists, and who are scientists, yet disagree with the RATE findings.

What is the problem with these dissenting Christians? Scientifically incompetent? Doctrinally deceived?

 

[Stripe]

If friction is not a prominent factor in why the tidal bulge is misaligned.

Friction is the only reason the bulge is offset.

Tell me the title, date, journal, and authors of the ones you have read.

Can't remember.

But as you have acknowledged, there are geophysical factors that can materially alter the tidal bulge geometry and position, and I fail to see that accounted for in Mr. Brown’s calculations.

That's because he is not required to. There is no need to assume the evolutionary history of the world.

 

[6days]

There is no need to assume the evolutionary history of the world.

I agree
gcthomas might agree. At the beginning of this discussion on the moon, he said "extrapolating modern rates is both theoretically incompetent and empirically disproven"

 

[redfern]

I have some experience dealing with that, but I do not know how to evaluate the level of my experience with the level of the experience of others here.

I don’t know what you are saying. If your level of experience is materially above us, then we (or at least I) would hope that you would be willing to show us where we are in error. If you are more on the novice end, then I would hope you would be receptive to new understandings.

 

[redfern]

... That's because he is not required to. There is no need to assume the evolutionary history of the world.

If Mr. Brown is going to make a claim about the distance between the moon and the earth 1.2 gya ago, then factors that would affect that distance are central to the issue. Are you saying there have been no significant changes in the land mass arrangement in over a billion years?

 

[6days]

You seem to confuse 'distance' and 'time'. They are two separate things.

Then you now have a pristine opportunity to show that I don’t understand the elements of what seems to be a simple problem in physics. Please show me where I am in error,

How can you NOT understand the difference between distance and time. My mom lives 2 hours away from me...What is the distance?

 

[redfern]

How can you NOT understand the difference between distance and time. My mom lives 2 hours away from me...What is the distance?

Why did you selectively omit the "How long it would take you to drive there" part of the question?

 

[marke]

So you couldn't find a paper that adhered to the best practices then? That doesn't surprise me.

Incidentally, your linked page is full of unproven assertions about how the science of some, with misrepresentations errors in most paragraphs as if the purpose is to persuade the uneducated not scientists.

Try this:
" So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.

However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. "

Every night astronomers observe the light curves of supernovae over time. The decay of the fireball is dominated by the decay of an isotope of nickel, iirc, and the half life is the same no matter how far the light has traveled. This means that the decay rates have been constant for over ten billion years unless you invoke a speed of light change miracle to exactly compensate. There are similar observations the verify the constancy of the speed of light, also, so such a claim would be foolish.

The dating claims you make are not supported be good science, since they are done people who want to misrepresent the data. It is dishonest - why do YOU think they didn't follow best practice? Could it be they didn't want an accurate answer, or was it just because there are no scientists trained in the methods? It is a choice of incompetence or dishonesty. Which is it?

Assertions of science are rarely based upon irrefutable truths. What had been accepted as fact for decades was later declared false when new data was discovered. For example, there was a time when textbooks promoted Piltdown as a fact of science, when it was nothing but a hoax. Someone has said science evolves and I must agree to an extent.