That's not how it works. There is contradictory scientific evidence and we have to pick and choose which one is right based on the weight of the evidence. You do it as well.
Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Tyrathca
New member
There have already been posts to that affect, but it seems creationists have steered clear of those.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm not talking about a *scientist* making a new discovery with EVIDENCE to back it up that might alter our viewpoint of a particular area of science.
I'm talking about laypeople, who decide with no actual evidence or training of their own that they have figured out that an entire branch of science is totally wrong. They offer no alternative explanation other than perhaps "God just did it that way" (which isn't an explanation).
If YECs were honest with themselves they'd admit they don't reject the old earth and evolution because of any evidence, only because they clash with their worldview.
It is scientific denialism, the rejection of a particular aspect of science in the face of overwhelming evidence. YEC is the same as the anti-vaxxers, the AIDs denialists etc.
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, there isn't any contradictory evidence, only the silly stories made up by AiG and the like. And if there were it wouldn't be the laypeople "picking and choosing" it would be people actually in the fields of study in question.
some other dude
New member
In other words, you have it exactly backwards. Basic constants don't require an old earth, basic constants exist independent of the age of the earth.
However, those constants can be used to support an old earth.
(Sot does a little cut-and-paste, and challenges Barbarian to show that various constants require an old Earth)
(Barbarian shows in detail why this is so)
Nope. As you just learned, all those constants are linked together, mostly by the speed of light. Mess with any of them, and they all change. And given that the evidence is not consistent with a significant change in the speed of light, it becomes clear that an old Earth required for the constants to be as they are.
You just learned that they do.
Wrong. For example, the speed of light requires that many rocks on Earth are billions of years old.
Maybe you should go back to posting funny pictures and calling people pigs. You're in way over your head here.
(Barbarian shows in detail why this is so)
Nope. As you just learned, all those constants are linked together, mostly by the speed of light. Mess with any of them, and they all change. And given that the evidence is not consistent with a significant change in the speed of light, it becomes clear that an old Earth required for the constants to be as they are.
You just learned that they do.
Wrong. For example, the speed of light requires that many rocks on Earth are billions of years old.
Maybe you should go back to posting funny pictures and calling people pigs. You're in way over your head here.
Kelvin later recanted; he had, in his paper setting the Earth's age at mere millions of years, given himself a way out...
Rutherford's account:
I came into the room, which was half dark, and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience and realized that I was in trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the earth, where my views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye, and **** a baleful glance at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said, 'Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the earth, provided no new source was discovered. That prophetic utterance refers to what we are now considering tonight, radium!' Behold! the old boy beamed upon me.
some other dude
New member
Barbie, I'm not going to start another mud wrestling match with you on this thread, much as you desire it.
Bottom line is, most of the physical constants in that list were determined long before our current understanding of the age of the universe was determined. They exist independent of the age of the earth.
For example, the speed of light can be estimated in the lab. I have done it myself many times. Trust me, it does not require the age of the earth. :chuckle:
Better stick to your biology and leave the hard science to those with some experience and aptitude. :thumb:
Yeah, my comments about the interrelationship of physical constants was pure ad hom, um? :rotfl: Why not go somewhere and let the adults talk now.
And when, as in the case of Rutherford, they were understood, it became clear that they were only consistent with an ancient Earth. Note, that this happened about 1904, over a hundred years ago. I think if you check, you'll find that the present value of those constants is younger than Rutherford's discovery of the age of the Earth.
More precisely, they require that the Earth be billions of years old.
Ah, like the "bug under the slip cover" stuff? That was funny. Now you're a physicist, um? If so, how did you not know about those constants?
As you learned, the rate of radioactive breakdown is a function of c, the speed of light. And if that speed had varied significantly to permit an Earth a few thousand years old, then all life would have been extinguished by the huge increase in background radiation.
As I said, you're in way over your head. Did you really think you were going to impress someone by posting that cut-and-past list, Sot?
some other dude
New member
Barbie, it's clear who keeps bringing up topics unrelated to the discussion. It's also clear who has an emotional investment in proving themself right.
Regardless of the utility of physical constants for estimating the age of the universe, they do not "require and [sic] old Earth" as you said. They exist independently of the age of the earth, they are derived independent of any consideration of the age of the earth.
Is English your primary language?
Yep. You would have been better served trying to figure out how to explain the evidence, than doing the "mud wrestling" stuff again. Instead of trying to find a way to prove the evil Barbarian wrong, you might want to calm yourself, and show how you think the speed of light can change significantly without killing all living things on Earth.
That would be a rational way to handle it. Angry accusations probably aren't going to help you. You were surprised to find those constants all had connections to the age of the earth. Learn from it.
Or maybe you're just trying to be obstinate. Hard to say.
(He's really hacked now. Typo flame. Pulling out the big guns) :chuckle:
Nevertheless, they do require an old Earth. Otherwise, they make no sense. If the Earth is not old, then those constants have to be wrong.
Your confusion is not the language of English; it's the language of science. Would you be offended at the suggestion that you go learn enough of it to talk about it? I would like to hear how it is that you frequently test the speed of light, but don't know the constants that depend on it. Can you clear that up for everyone here?
The really interesting thing was, Lord Kelvin's calculations were flawless. He didn't know about radioactive decay, which supplied the thermal energy that seemed to otherwise demonstrate an Earth a few tens of millions of years old.
Darwin entered into the argument, pointing out that a few tens of millions of years would be insufficient for the observed diversification of living things. But Kelvin's numbers were good, and most scientists went with Kelvin.
Until Rutherford found the source of the heat. And then even Kelvin recanted.
One of the more surprising verified claims of evolutionary theory is that the Earth is very old.
Darwin entered into the argument, pointing out that a few tens of millions of years would be insufficient for the observed diversification of living things. But Kelvin's numbers were good, and most scientists went with Kelvin.
Until Rutherford found the source of the heat. And then even Kelvin recanted.
One of the more surprising verified claims of evolutionary theory is that the Earth is very old.
some other dude
New member
Barbie, you brought it up first. And you're bringing it up again.
No, I said nothing about "the evil Barbarian". That's just you talking. You do this often. You'd rather make this into personalities than examine the facts.
And again, Barbie makes a false assumption. I'm perfectly calm.
Seeing as I don't think that, why would I try?
Argue a point I'm not trying to make would be rational?
Perhaps to the Barbie. :idunno:
I've reread my posts and I don't see that I made any "angry accusations". What were you referring to?
No, I wasn't surprised, because that's not the argument I was making. :doh:
I can see why you might think that, seeing how you misunderstood what I was saying.
I'm sorry? "Hacked" ? I posted your quote, as you made it. If I had corrected it I was afraid you would accuse me of editing your post.
Rather, they can be used to demonstrate an old earth. Determining those constants requires no assumptions about the age of the earth.
Your presumption of my confusion is predicated on your misunderstanding of my initial post.
Offended? No. Amused? Yes. As would be my professors.
Sure, I'd be glad to. It's simple. When calculating the speed of light in the lab, we never use the age of the earth. Period.
Well, since no one's going to talk about the science, I'll call it a night. Maybe we'll see a reply tomorrow.
some other dude
New member
See Barbie, you've learned something today.
And I'm glad I could keep you from melting down like you usually do. :thumb:
And I'm glad I could keep you from melting down like you usually do. :thumb:
some other dude
New member
Are these the responses of a rational scientist who is interested in discussing the topic at hand?
I'm starting to wonder if our friend Barbie isn't a few beers short of a six-pack. :think:
Barbie said:
Barbie said:
Barbie said:
Barbie said:
Barbie said:
Barbie said:
Barbie said:
Barbie said:
I'm starting to wonder if our friend Barbie isn't a few beers short of a six-pack. :think:
Sot asks:
I'm starting to wonder if our friend Barbie isn't a few beers short of a six-pack.
No, I don't think so, Sot. It would be more like this:
The really interesting thing was, Lord Kelvin's calculations were flawless. He didn't know about radioactive decay, which supplied the thermal energy that seemed to otherwise demonstrate an Earth a few tens of millions of years old.
Darwin entered into the argument, pointing out that a few tens of millions of years would be insufficient for the observed diversification of living things. But Kelvin's numbers were good, and most scientists went with Kelvin.
Until Rutherford found the source of the heat. And then even Kelvin recanted.
One of the more surprising verified claims of evolutionary theory is that the Earth is very old.
That's scientific discourse. I gather you never read it because you were so agitated about not knowing what you were talking about. But I'd still like to hear your explanation how you frequently estimate the speed of light, but don't know how any of the constants work.
Do you think you could forget about the evil Barbarian long enough to tell us that?
I'm starting to wonder if our friend Barbie isn't a few beers short of a six-pack.
No, I don't think so, Sot. It would be more like this:
The really interesting thing was, Lord Kelvin's calculations were flawless. He didn't know about radioactive decay, which supplied the thermal energy that seemed to otherwise demonstrate an Earth a few tens of millions of years old.
Darwin entered into the argument, pointing out that a few tens of millions of years would be insufficient for the observed diversification of living things. But Kelvin's numbers were good, and most scientists went with Kelvin.
Until Rutherford found the source of the heat. And then even Kelvin recanted.
One of the more surprising verified claims of evolutionary theory is that the Earth is very old.
That's scientific discourse. I gather you never read it because you were so agitated about not knowing what you were talking about. But I'd still like to hear your explanation how you frequently estimate the speed of light, but don't know how any of the constants work.
Do you think you could forget about the evil Barbarian long enough to tell us that?
some other dude
New member
I never said that. :idunno:
"evil Barbarian" ??
You're not quite right in the head, are you?
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Thats a nice story, but there are real live scientists (with business cards and everything) who disagree with you based on evidence in their field. There's a website that lists some of them somewhere. But everytime someone brings up these people, the evolutionist will find somone like a dentist on the list and poo-poo it. You'll ignore the actual scientists in their field so you can continue making this dishonest claim. I'm reading a book right now where 50 of them explain their position on why they are YEC's. It'll mean more to you if you look it up on your own.
You may think of yourself as the scientific bourgeoisie, but pardon us for not bowing to your every word as if its gospel. If you tell me a rediculous story about all life on earth coming from a common ancestor, you'll need to show me outstanding proof. I'm not talking about salamanders that are still salamanders and the other crap that gets drug out as proof. Yes, I'm incredulous, but an antonym for that is gullible.
(Sot lashes out again)
I'm just wondering how you manage to frequently test the speed of light, when you have no idea what constants are involved with it.
You seem rather unwilling to tell us; you get angry and abusive when I ask. I think I know why.
I'm just wondering how you manage to frequently test the speed of light, when you have no idea what constants are involved with it.
You seem rather unwilling to tell us; you get angry and abusive when I ask. I think I know why.
- Status