alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 02:44 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 01:37 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  "A god capable of creating a universe could create stars with light streams already in place." ...

And you called my argument dumb?
Yes, it's dumb.
Quote:Sure, he could, but why create the illusion?
What illusion? The purpose is given - "to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth.” No need to go through the charade of creating them then waiting.

Ugh.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 02:57 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Given the criteria laid out by Alpha and Robby's materialist bias defense, then there is no argument to be had on any level for any topic when you insert the omniscience and omnipotence, so why have this forum or any debate ever?

I am growing increasingly tired of this aspect in these forums. Why try to shine a light on reason and evidence? It is just no use!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
06-01-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 03:24 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 02:57 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Given the criteria laid out by Alpha and Robby's materialist bias defense, then there is no argument to be had on any level for any topic when you insert the omniscience and omnipotence, so why have this forum or any debate ever?

I am growing increasingly tired of this aspect in these forums. Why try to shine a light on reason and evidence? It is just no use!

Because if all someone's got is "NUH UH IT JUST IS" when asked to explain their beliefs - particularly if those beliefs are a personal invention then, at the very least, they're good for a laugh.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
06-01-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 10:08 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 05:13 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Lol, you're an idiot, aren't you?

Actually, it technically is a dumb argument. If you're starting with the assumption of a powerful creator-god who made the whole universe, it's painfully easy to simply state that he created the stars 6,000 years ago (or last Thursday) and he created a bunch of photons most of the way from the star to the earth.

It's an absurd and unfounded assertion, but it technically falls right in line with the idea of powerful creator-gods. Sure, the reasons for the god doing this are equally absurd, but the existence of stars further way than 6,000 light years doesn't actually prove anything.
Sure, but if one would claim that god vent to such lengths to trick us then god evidently wanted us to believe that universe is 14 billion years old.
Then claiming (knowledge ) that universe is 6-10k years old is claiming that you see trough god's deception. And in turn that means that supposedly omniscient and omnipotent god can't fool a simple human.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Slowminded's post
06-01-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 11:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:44 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Being disingenuous isn't cute and is annoying to respond to.

Light travels at 1 ly/yr, hence the name. If the observable universe is 13.7 Gly across then it must be 13.7 Ga old. This is in direct contradiction to your young Earth. Kindly reconcile.
A god capable of creating a universe could create stars with light streams already in place.

Your God is a liar then? The light carries information. On Feb. 23, 1987 light from a star 168,000 ly away in the Large Magellanic Cloud revealed that the star in question had gone supernova 168,000 years ago. Now you're telling me that never happened but your God lied about it?


(06-01-2014 11:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Care to list a few? I know them all and how to check them.

News to me and bad news to us all. Would you care to cite a source?
I guess you don't know them all. In short, decay rates seem to be influenced by the distance from the sun; solar flares; and on a 33-day cycle, which may indicate the rotational period of the sun's core. Neutrinos are speculated as the cause but we don't really know at this point.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augus...82310.html
http://phys.org/news202456660.html

Heard it. It's irrelevant. Even if true, which is highly debatable (solar neutrinos are produced in the core of the sun, not by solar flares), short-period cyclical variations of <1% wouldn't even show up over hundred year timescales, much less billion year ones. It all averages out.

Try for a peer-reviewed paper next time:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0508001928

In the abstract of their paper, Norman et al. Wrote:We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We find no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments.

Let me cut off any further chatter about decay rates at the knees right here. We know that the decay rates are constant, or so close as makes no difference. Here's how we know:
  1. Decay rates are controlled by the fundamental forces that make the Universe go about its business. Any significant changes in those forces and everything either goes BOOM! or >pfft<. Please do not muck with the fundamental underpinnings of the universe.
  2. Natural background radiation accounts for ~2 milliSieverts/person/year on average. If decay rates increased enough to make 20,000 years appear to be 4.5 billion years then the background radiation would have to increase proportionally, by a factor of 225,000! This dose of 450 Sv/yr would kill you in a truly horrific fashion in a matter of days and would quite efficiently sterilize the entire planet.
  3. Radiogenic heating is heat produced by nuclear decay. It's what power radioisotope thermoelectric generators, melted the cores of Three Mile Island and Fukushima, produces a large part of the heat that keeps the Earth's core toasty and causes crust to melt when it gets much thicker than 40 km. As with the point above, if you up the decay rates you up the heat produced. The 12 teraWatts currently produced becomes 2.7 zettaWatts, the Earth melts and glows like a second star. Happily, you no longer have to concern yourself with radiation poisoning since you've been boiled alive by your own internal radiogenic heating.

(06-01-2014 11:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Other assumptions vary to some extent with the method. here's a list of assumptions regarding K-Ar dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93A...ssumptions

And that very nice list also explains how each of those assumptions is backed up and verified. We don't just assume stuff, we check it to make sure it's working.

That aside, K-Ar is an old technique. Anybody using it at all uses Ar-Ar and that's largely limited to calculations of heating and cooling curves. Ar systems reset at too low a temperature for much else.

Let's talk U-Pb instead. Big Grin

(06-01-2014 11:19 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Your young Earth seems to have a few hundred million years of it accumulated. Another tiny contradiction that you need to reconcile.
Young earth models incorporate plate tectonics, generally during the flood.

Yeah, I've seen some of those. They have all the scientific rigor of overcooked pasta and tend to produce results similar to running radioactive decay rates too fast. At present rates, plate tectonics is creeping along at about the same speed that your fingernails grow. At these very sedate speeds the friction along the plate boundaries is enough to produce localized melting and generate > magnitude 9 earthquakes. Ramp those speeds up by a factor of 225,000 and you get a blinding wall of plasma where the Rockies, Himalaya and Alps ought to be and the tectonic plates get smashed to the size of driveway gravel.

Way to destroy the planet! Keep trying though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Paleophyte's post
06-01-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 02:57 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Given the criteria laid out by Alpha and Robby's materialist bias defense, then there is no argument to be had on any level for any topic when you insert the omniscience and omnipotence, so why have this forum or any debate ever?

Hey, that's not my defense! That thread was created so I could get Alpha to explain it as opposed to repeatedly calling it a red herring and refusing to talk about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
06-01-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
Smile

I just meant you brought that defense up, sorry.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
06-01-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Your God is a liar then? The light carries information. On Feb. 23, 1987 light from a star 168,000 ly away in the Large Magellanic Cloud revealed that the star in question had gone supernova 168,000 years ago. Now you're telling me that never happened but your God lied about it?
God could have created it that way 10,000 years ago, with the light already extending 158,000 ly.

Quote:Heard it. It's irrelevant.
Your opinion is noted. I find it relevant.
Quote:Even if true, which is highly debatable (solar neutrinos are produced in the core of the sun, not by solar flares),
What's highly debatable - the proposed mechanisms, or the data re: decay rate?
Quote:short-period cyclical variations of <1% wouldn't even show up over hundred year timescales, much less billion year ones. It all averages out.
If you assume that whatever causes it, which we don't even know yet, has always been going on at the same rate. You can assume that to keep your confidence in radiometric dating if you like, but I don't need to.
Quote:Try for a peer-reviewed paper next time:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0508001928
Likewise. You linked to an abstract, as the paper costs $36 bucks to purchase, and I probably wouldn't be allowed to post it here anyway. Funny how you guys complain about voluntary collection plates.
Quote:Let me cut off any further chatter about decay rates at the knees right here. We know that the decay rates are constant, or so close as makes no difference.
Sorry, but the info I posted indicates otherwise. Your desire to "cut off any further chatter about decay rates" is telling. You seem disturbed by this.

Quote:Yeah, I've seen some of those. They have all the scientific rigor of overcooked pasta and tend to produce results similar to running radioactive decay rates too fast. At present rates, plate tectonics is creeping along at about the same speed that your fingernails grow. At these very sedate speeds the friction along the plate boundaries is enough to produce localized melting and generate > magnitude 9 earthquakes. Ramp those speeds up by a factor of 225,000 and you get a blinding wall of plasma where the Rockies, Himalaya and Alps ought to be and the tectonic plates get smashed to the size of driveway gravel.
Are you claiming that peer-reviewed papers have studied the Biblical model? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 10:47 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Your God is a liar then? The light carries information. On Feb. 23, 1987 light from a star 168,000 ly away in the Large Magellanic Cloud revealed that the star in question had gone supernova 168,000 years ago. Now you're telling me that never happened but your God lied about it?
God could have created it that way 10,000 years ago, with the light already extending 158,000 ly.
Then it would be a lie. The evidence says that it happened 168,000 years ago but 168,000 years ago didn't happen. The God that you describe is a liar and an inept liar because he's been caught out at it by a mere mortal.

You're suffering from the Omphalos Hypothesis. It's unfalsifiable and useless. I can argue just as well that you were created five minutes ago with all the memories of your life in place. There's no way you can disprove it but it's pretty meaningless. If you persist in this nonsense we will feed you to the Last Thursdayists.

(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Heard it. It's irrelevant.
Your opinion is noted. I find it relevant.
It isn't opinion, it's simple math. A <1% difference in decay rates doesn't make 10,000 years look like 4.5 billion. A cyclical variation in decay rates doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Any gains when the decay rate is 101% are lost when it's 99%. The average is 100%. No change. 100 + 1 -1 = 100 See, simple math. It'd only be relevant over timescales of a few days.

(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Even if true, which is highly debatable (solar neutrinos are produced in the core of the sun, not by solar flares),
What's highly debatable - the proposed mechanisms, or the data re: decay rate?
Both. See the paper I linked. There is no proposed mechanism, the neutrino hypothesis doesn't make sense and the data is open to multiple interpretations.

(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:short-period cyclical variations of <1% wouldn't even show up over hundred year timescales, much less billion year ones. It all averages out.
If you assume that whatever causes it, which we don't even know yet, has always been going on at the same rate. You can assume that to keep your confidence in radiometric dating if you like, but I don't need to.
So you're going to assume that some unproven effect with some unexplained mechanism has been changing decay rates to fit your theology? Did you miss the part where I explained that

This Will Destroy The Earth

or are you just deliberately dodging it?

(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Let me cut off any further chatter about decay rates at the knees right here. We know that the decay rates are constant, or so close as makes no difference.
Sorry, but the info I posted indicates otherwise. Your desire to "cut off any further chatter about decay rates" is telling. You seem disturbed by this.
No, it doesn't. It indicates the possibility of small, short-term cyclical variation. It does not even hint at the vast, long-term deviation from the decay rates that you would need to fit a 4.5 billion year old Earth into a 10,000 year bottle. I'm not in the least disturbed by it and your utter lack of a reply to the fact that changing the decay rates as much as you'd need to would turn the planet into a radioactive ball of bubbling lava is what's telling.

(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Yeah, I've seen some of those. They have all the scientific rigor of overcooked pasta and tend to produce results similar to running radioactive decay rates too fast. At present rates, plate tectonics is creeping along at about the same speed that your fingernails grow. At these very sedate speeds the friction along the plate boundaries is enough to produce localized melting and generate > magnitude 9 earthquakes. Ramp those speeds up by a factor of 225,000 and you get a blinding wall of plasma where the Rockies, Himalaya and Alps ought to be and the tectonic plates get smashed to the size of driveway gravel.
Are you claiming that peer-reviewed papers have studied the Biblical model? Consider
What Biblical model? Who said anything about peer-reviewed? I'm just applying a little common sense and basic math to running plate tectonics at half a million times its normal rate. Plate tectonics run at 1.4 m/hr is utterly catastrophic and there's simply no getting around that. Perhaps you should give common sense and basic math a whirl.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
06-01-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: alpha male's beliefs concerning the age of the Earth
(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Your God is a liar then? The light carries information. On Feb. 23, 1987 light from a star 168,000 ly away in the Large Magellanic Cloud revealed that the star in question had gone supernova 168,000 years ago. Now you're telling me that never happened but your God lied about it?
God could have created it that way 10,000 years ago, with the light already extending 158,000 ly.


But it's a needless assumption, and the lie makes it even more needless and less probably than any naturalistic explanation.



(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Heard it. It's irrelevant.
Your opinion is noted. I find it relevant.


There difference here is, he has an informed opinion; so his is worth more credibility than yours. Drinking Beverage



(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Even if true, which is highly debatable (solar neutrinos are produced in the core of the sun, not by solar flares),
What's highly debatable - the proposed mechanisms, or the data re: decay rate?


Try digesting the peer-reviewed paper he linked to, after you have than under your belt, then come back for questions.



(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  short-period cyclical variations of <1% wouldn't even show up over hundred year timescales, much less billion year ones. It all averages out.
If you assume that whatever causes it, which we don't even know yet, has always been going on at the same rate. You can assume that to keep your confidence in radiometric dating if you like, but I don't need to.


As opposed to assuming that your preferred imaginary friend is responsible for it all a few thousand years ago? Okay. The problem is, when you assume magic, there is no way to tell who has the better or more plausible answer. So I can claim that the universe was created yesterday by Ted, the all-powerful invisible Tequilla monster.

[Image: QC_Tequila_Monster_Stamp_by_RaineDrops18.png]

*Artists interpretation, not an actual image of the invisible and all-powerful Ted*

He created the entire universe and the illusion of our memories, lives, and evidence to make it look the universe has a history that extend out far beyond it's time of creation.

How can you prove that your assumption is any more plausible than mine? Weeping



(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Try for a peer-reviewed paper next time:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0508001928
Likewise. You linked to an abstract, as the paper costs $36 bucks to purchase, and I probably wouldn't be allowed to post it here anyway. Funny how you guys complain about voluntary collection plates.


False equivocation. C'mon troll, you can do better than that. Drinking Beverage



(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Let me cut off any further chatter about decay rates at the knees right here. We know that the decay rates are constant, or so close as makes no difference.
Sorry, but the info I posted indicates otherwise. Your desire to "cut off any further chatter about decay rates" is telling. You seem disturbed by this.


You know, if you applied your same level of incredulity you apply to science to everything else, you wouldn't be able to operate day-to-day because you wouldn't believe anything. Gravity? Fuck that shit, you'd have killed yourself the first time you managed to get more than 2 stories off of the ground...



(06-01-2014 05:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 03:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Yeah, I've seen some of those. They have all the scientific rigor of overcooked pasta and tend to produce results similar to running radioactive decay rates too fast. At present rates, plate tectonics is creeping along at about the same speed that your fingernails grow. At these very sedate speeds the friction along the plate boundaries is enough to produce localized melting and generate > magnitude 9 earthquakes. Ramp those speeds up by a factor of 225,000 and you get a blinding wall of plasma where the Rockies, Himalaya and Alps ought to be and the tectonic plates get smashed to the size of driveway gravel.
Are you claiming that peer-reviewed papers have studied the Biblical model? Consider

Of course not, because the Biblical models never make it into peer reviewed journals because they get laughed out of the room. They do have any evidence to support their assumptions, and you can't take anyone seriously who assumes the 'self authenticating holy spirit' or the 'inerrancy of the Gospels' over evidence. But their models aren't meant to impress or convince scientists and win over a scientific consensus, they're meant to impress ignorant fucktards like you; and it clearly works... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: