@LarryI you replied to Allen, but I wrote that text you quoted.
We know what the early universe looked like because astronomers can see back to the early universe. Specifically, to when the first stars started forming. That’s nature, and we can learn from nature.
If there wasn’t an early stage at all, they we have the question of why we see multiple lines of evidence suggesting the earth and the universe are very very old. Is nature lying to us? Why?
It’s not all speculation and theory, we have evidence.
No. I don’t think it is at all similar to an aspect of quantum physics. We can study quantum particles scientifically. Are you suggesting that God changes history when we observe evidence of the past? because that seems … unreasonable.
Isn’t First Cause an empty argument? The only way out of it is a special pleading. There are theories in cosmology that do not require action from outside the universe.
Edit, adding:
How do you know? Have you ever formed a universe??
Larry, measurement and mathematics are NOT “just speculation and theory.” They are the exact polar opposite.
Seriously, if you’re going to critique rigorous scientific disciplines, please make sure you’re critiquing what their practitioners actually do in real life and not some kind of garbled and untrue caricature of it. Dismissing rigorous, mathematical, measurement-based disciplines as “just speculation and theory” is at best ignorance and at worst intellectual dishonesty.
Let me get this straight. You think that it is unscientific to theorize that natural processes produce the phenomena we see around us? If so, I think you need to read up on what science is.
Let me know when it actually gets to the stage where it is a carefully designed solar system that allows life to exist. I’m sure that we will see alien humans and life forms starting out there in the next, what, billion years or so. Not exactly the same as the delicate solar system that we enjoy here on earth either, is it. No, the observation that we need to understand is that there was something that happened that caused a solar system to form like ours, and life to form here on earth. What is that first cause exactly? There is no other explanation for it other than something or some higher being caused it to happen. Watching a planetary system forming does not get us any closer to answering that question.
The problem with this is that testing meteors without knowing when they were formed and then attaching an age to them that matches the earth exactly is pure speculation. Where did these meteors come from? I read the paper on the meteors and the scientists don’t know exactly where they came from. How does testing a meteor that landed here without knowing the age or starting point of the meteor give us any indication that the meteor is the same age as the earth? The problem is that we humans are an inquisitive bunch of people. Humans want to know who their parents were, even if they were adopted and the parents don’t want to be revealed. How do we have complete faith in a figure like 4.5 billion without knowing what a starting point was? What the 4.5 billion year age means is that the starting point would have to be at least 4.5 billion years, doesn’t it? What if the starting point were 10,000 years?
I really don’t see what that has to do with anything. The mechanisms for creating habitable and non-habitable planets are the exact same. It’s called gravity.
I agree, but this has nothing to do with the apparent age of the earth. I am with you that the first cause was God, but that doesn’t explain why the earth looks old.
This does not follow @LarryI. I can say with 100% certainty that the earth appears older than 4 billion years old, and I do not need to rely on meteors to get there.
I’m still hoping to hear how old you think the earth is.
What are those theories exactly? Aliens invaded our solar system and setting it up just to spite people who might think there was some kind of design? I have heard some of these theories, and they are not the same as testing something here on earth, like say, isotopes in a meteor. Many of them are nothing but ridiculous notions that sound like they were revealed during a late night drunken gab session attended by frustrated atheists.
The point that I am making about quantum physics is that there is an aspect to it that changes the more that scientists attempt to discover what it is. It is the aspect that cannot be known purely by experimentation.
It isn’t speculation. It is based on known physical laws, that of radioactive decay. The oldest rocks dated on Earth are 4.3-4.4 billion years old. Meteors were independently tested using the same methods and they returned a date of 4.5 billion years. None of this is speculation.
Meteors formed through gravitational attraction between dust and gas particles in the early solar system, the same way that planets formed.
Both the meteor and the oldest rocks on Earth have the same history of radioactive decay. That’s how.
We don’t need faith. We have methods that measure the age of rocks. We trust those methods because multiple independent methods of measuring ages in rocks arrive at the same age.
Then we wouldn’t find 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay in meteors.
Depends what we mean by faith. If faith is trust, and is justified with evidence, than we do have “faith” in that figure, justified faith. The question is rather why we should trust another number when no evidence is being offered to support it.
[quote=“LarryI, post:96, topic:2534”]
What are those theories exactly? Aliens invaded our solar system and setting it up just to spite people who might think there was some kind of design?[/quote]
No, that’s the Raelian’s, which has nothing to so with … much of anything, really.
I have heard some of these theories, and they are not the same as testing something here on earth, like say, isotopes in a meteor.
Vacuum energy from quantum fluctuation has been demonstrated in the laboratory, right here on Earth. One cosmological theory states that the Big Bang is consistent with a @!@!$! HUGE vacuum energy fluctuation.
Many of them are nothing but ridiculous notions that sound like they were revealed during a late night drunken gab session attended by frustrated atheists.
I should make you cite those.
The point that I am making about quantum physics is that there is an aspect to it that changes the more that scientists attempt to discover what it is. It is the aspect that cannot be known purely by experimentation.
I think you mean that the velocity and position of a quantum particle cannot both be know simultaneously. Are you suggesting that God changes history whenever scientists observe evidence of the past?
My goodness! God could have created the universe last Thursday AND WE WOULD NEVER KNOW.
You missed my more interesting question:
Not sure if I need to question you more about First Cause; you see the problem there, I think.
We were discussing this in my Bible study group this evening, in relation to Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” One point I made was that faith is confidence in what we do not see, but it is not a denial of what we do see. As a Christian, I believe that there’s more to life and more to reality than just what we can measure and observe. But I do not believe that what we can measure and observe is deceptive or unreal. That’s gnosticism.
Did you read my latest post about how many examples of radiometric dating were tested and found to be inaccurate and unscientific. I suggest you remeasure and reexamine your understanding of radiometric dating so that it aligns with the reality of what happens on the planet earth and in space. Thanks.
Discrepancies and discordances are the exception, not the rule.
Showing that one method fails under specific conditions does not prove that all methods fail everywhere.
Showing that a method fails when pushed to its limits does not prove that all methods fail everywhere.
Discrepancies of a factor of two or three do not prove that all methods must be out by a factor of a million or more.
The differences are unsurprising, well understood, and useful.
Some claims of discordant dates are blatantly dishonest.
In short, the extent and significance of discrepancies and discordances is blown up out of all proportion by YECs. You need to look at all the radiometric data as a whole, not just a few cherry-picked examples. When you do so, you see that they fall far, far short of justifying claims that all radiometric results could consistently be out by a factor of a million or more.
Freshly minted zircon crystal? Is that anything like a freshly created universe and solar system? Exactly what are your ideas on how the universe and our solar system and our earth was formed? Please come up with a comprehensive list of all the assumptions that you think are being made to show how it fits into the grand scheme of things? What new laws of fantasy physics would you use to make something like that happen?
With all of the talk about radiometric dating, as in the dating of meteors and such like with appropriate isotopes, I thought I would provide a number of examples of the flaws in modern radiometric dating.
Rocks that were created since the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens have been dated to be 2.8 billion years old.
There is a Sunset Crater in Arizona. Scientists have used radiometric dating (Potassium / Argon the rocks from the crater there and estimated the rocks to be more than 200,000 years old. It was formed in 1065. Indian records have confirmed the date.
Lava flow deposits in New Zealand, at Mt. Ngaurhoe were tested Potassium - Argon isotope radiometric to be at least 275,000 years old. Lava flows from the mountain happened in 1949, 1954 and 1975.
In Hawaii, the Hualalai volcano erupted with basalt lava in 1800 and 1801, and more recently, Mauna Loa erupted in 1984. Rocks from this lava flow were tested with Potassium / Argon to be 1.4 million to 22 million years old.
Here is another one from Sicily: Rocks from Mt. Etna were tested to be from 140,000 - 350,000 years old. In reality, rocks from the lava date from 1972.
Now I wonder why anyone would not question radiometric for dating any kind of rocks, least of all meteors from outer space? Why not treat radiometric dating results with the skepticism that it deserves? If it has shown to be a failure in many instances, why continue to use it as though it is reliable? Could it be that some have a vested interest in the results of such tests because they want it to disprove evidence of a young earth?
