Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[the other mike]

How Do We Know The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old?

The 6,000 year age was arrived at by James Ussher, a 17th century Irish Archbishop who counted up estimates of the ages of Abraham’s family listed in the Old Testament and calculated that the creation began (on the Julian calendar) on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, at 6 pm. Really.

Usher made a lot of assumptions, chose to ignore inconsistencies within even those scriptural sources known at that time, and was unaware of certain, now obvious translation issues, importantly including the way the Babylonians counted, but that’s beside the point. As William Henry Green wrote, “The Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”

In other words, even if Ussher’s calculation were correct (it isn’t) it would only tell us when Abraham lived, not when the world was made.

 

[james bond]

Instead, the Earth's magnetic field's energy has halved every 1,465 years

Bond, your nonsense does not belong in the science section.

I'm not an alarmist, but the Earth's magnetic field is weakening faster than climate change.

 

[james bond]

How Do We Know The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old?

The 6,000 year age was arrived at by James Ussher, a 17th century Irish Archbishop who counted up estimates of the ages of Abraham’s family listed in the Old Testament and calculated that the creation began (on the Julian calendar) on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, at 6 pm. Really.

Usher made a lot of assumptions, chose to ignore inconsistencies within even those scriptural sources known at that time, and was unaware of certain, now obvious translation issues, importantly including the way the Babylonians counted, but that’s beside the point. As William Henry Green wrote, “The Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”

In other words, even if Ussher’s calculation were correct (it isn’t) it would only tell us when Abraham lived, not when the world was made.

Give it Angelo . Science is not your strong suit. You're all over the place.

 

[the other mike]

 

[Crixus]

Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets

Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?

It's good to see folks like this recognized this way.

 

[jwoodie]

Why the need to constantly invent straw men? Who believes the Earth was created in 168 hours?

 

[james bond]

Who believes the Earth was created in 168 hours?

Real creation science.

I do because the Bible says so and it took God that long. There was only one witness -- God and he tells all in his autobiography. Evolution says all of it was set up in around 20 mins, but does not state how it all happened. Care to explain?

 

[jwoodie]

I do because the Bible says so and it took God that long. There was only one witness -- God and he tells all in his autobiography. Evolution says all of it was set up in around 20 mins, but does not state how it all happened. Care to explain?

I do not believe that God was bound by human understanding of time and space when he created the universe.

 

[james bond]

I do because the Bible says so and it took God that long. There was only one witness -- God and he tells all in his autobiography. Evolution says all of it was set up in around 20 mins, but does not state how it all happened. Care to explain?

I do not believe that God was bound by human understanding of time and space when he created the universe.

He created light or the EMS and he separated day and night. It was evening and it was morning. Sounds like space time to me. The first day.

OTOH, the big bang has expansion but into what? Did it make its own space? It would need a void. And where is the light? Radiation? If there was time, there would have to be day, night, morning, and evening. None of that is explained. Can you explain it?

 

[jwoodie]

He created light or the EMS and he separated day and night. It was evening and it was morning. Sounds like space time to me. The first day.

He created light = the Sun?
Day and night = rotation of the Earth?
So when was the Earth created? Is/was it the center of the Universe?

I think that literal interpretations of words that were written for human understanding thousands of years ago put one inside an intellectual box. Do you also take the Parables literally (i.e., the Prodigal Son was referring to a specific person)? How about the Sun "stopping" in the sky? We now know that the Earth revolves (and rotates) around the Sun, not vice versa. Weren't these words used for human understanding at the time they were written?

P.S. Why aren't we still reading in Hebrew or speaking Aramaic?

 

[Wuwei]

The evidence shows it is 6000 years old as carbon-14 still remains in rocks and fossils. We also have soft tissue and C-14 remaining in dinosaur fossils. The atheist scientists lie to you by disregarding the evidence that contradicts evolutionary time scales. Not only that the rock layers are named after location. It has nothing to do with time. The evos just made up that BS because they needed billions of years and hundreds of millions of years to cover up evolution. There is plenty of evidence that evolution never happens, but many people end up being fooled by bullshit.

One of my early jobs was to build a custom C14 system using a "phoswich" detector. The use of two phosphors allows C14 radiation from the sample to be distinguished from exterior radiation. However it is imperfect and there is always a residual amount of exterior radiation that adds to a background level.

The 40,000 year accuracy limit is due to unwanted contamination (eg fingerprints) and cosmic rays. The background can be estimated and subtracted, but the statistics of a null experiment show that the statistical variance can give false positives when stretched to the 40,000 year limit.

Any C14 "detected" from old fossils are no doubt contamination or variances in the assumed background level. If you found uncontaminated fossils that had a CO2 level of the young earth 6,000 years, then that would prove your point, but as it is you can't support creationism from C14 measurement error in fossils.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Science is supposed to be the search for truth and knowledge, but it has become the search for evidence to back up lies.

That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence.

I'm curious; what does creationism say about the distance of galaxies? There is a lot of different techniques that determine the distances of a galaxies to be millions to billion of light years away. Does creationism argue that the farthest star is no more than 6,000 light years away?

 

[percysunshine]

Ok, conducting the experiment which established a theory does deserve an attaboy.

 

[james bond]

He created light = the Sun?

No, EMS. The sun was created on 4th day.

Day and night = rotation of the Earth?

What causes the Earth to rotate?

We first had the EMS as light. That brought space into existence. Separation of dark from the light and the creation of day, night, morning, and evening brought time into existence. Thus, the first day came and gone.

So when was the Earth created? Is/was it the center of the Universe?

The first day when God created the heavens above, i.e. the universe, and the Earth below. Before that was absolute nothing called the void. We do not know it was the center of the universe.

As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinion.

P.S. Why aren't we still reading in Hebrew or speaking Aramaic?

That came later with the Tower of Babel. I'm a Gentile, so read the English version of the Bible.

 

[james bond]

Any C14 "detected" from old fossils are no doubt contamination or variances in the assumed background level. If you found uncontaminated fossils that had a CO2 level of the young earth 6,000 years, then that would prove your point, but as it is you can't support creationism from C14 measurement error in fossils.

.

Your's are false beliefs based on much false assumptions made in radiometric dating and discarding of valid evidence. For example, if you did radiometric dating (not radiocarbon) dating on moon a sample of moon rocks and it gave a variety of readings, then all of it should be discarded. Instead, only the ones that fit a preconceived range are accepted as accurate.

Furthermore, the testing labs found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, so it isn't just C-14 dating. There is C-14 left in diamonds and coal. These are world class laboratories doing the measurements, so they would take into account any contamination. Your biased science is half baked.

 

[james bond]

That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence.

Christians invented modern science -- Creation scientists - creation.com. Basically, we have science based on creation and science based on non-creation science.

The stretch is on the part of ToE and evolutionary thinking and history. We also have the Bible written before science was discovered. This is what modern observable, testable, and falsifiable science backs up today. Your evolutionary science came afterward and is based on uniformitarianism and Darwinism, both atheist in nature. Darwin was given a living cell to start with. No actual science backs it up, and we have discovered much of his theories were wrong. It is based on historical science or circumstantial science.

ETA: This is why I consider secular science who does not consider any science outside their own to be fake science. You believe in wrong science and thus, your results are wrong. It's like you were brainwashed and forgot all your science. However, I do understand one needs funding in science and one has to play the "game" of science based on evolution in order to get the funding. It doesn't mean that we toss creation science away. Much of creation science today is to defend itself from wrong secular or atheist science. One can't argue creation in Nature or Science publications nor in peer reviews. Thus, those who argue creation had to form their own groups and are reduced to only one US university that will host them (there may be more in the world, but I am not aware).

I'm curious; what does creationism say about the distance of galaxies? There is a lot of different techniques that determine the distances of a galaxies to be millions to billion of light years away. Does creationism argue that the farthest star is no more than 6,000 light years away?

Astrophysics isn't one of my strengths is science, so will let Dr. Lisle and Dr. Humphries explain that. It isn't just simple gravity and spacetime effects that we are seeing. It is also due to the history of the speed of light.

 

[james bond]

Here's the weird thing to me. I understand most science although I'm a computer scientist by trade now. Today's science is based on consensus and they think creation science is very far off or is a religion. To the contrary, it is science. It's the real science that is observable. Nobody can see what a billion years looks life because we can't and haven't. Things happened to the Earth that the secular scientists do not believe. They believe the PRESENT IS THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE PAST. This is wrong, and that's why their science ends up wrong. The stuff you read in science text books based on evolution today are wrong. The evolution stuff in many museums are wrong. It is because they eliminated the creation based science. I wasn't taught science this way. Science was always about arguments and who had best theory and not consensus.

The secular physicists and theoretical physicists had to go to multiverses and such because they could not explain why we are here today. They are lying to you or are wrong. However, you will end up being brainwashed to believe this.

How does this affect you? It means that you will live shorter lives. Evolution and evolutionary thinking and living this way will not prolong your lives. I will probably outlive those who are in the late 40s - 50s today and I'm a few years away from turning 60.

 

[Wuwei]

For example, if you did radiometric dating (not radiocarbon) dating on moon a sample of moon rocks and it gave a variety of readings, then all of it should be discarded. Instead, only the ones that fit a preconceived range are accepted as accurate.

You seem to be saying scientists would cheat. If so, that is a weird thing to say.

Furthermore, the testing labs found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, so it isn't just C-14 dating. There is C-14 left in diamonds and coal. These are world class laboratories doing the measurements, so they would take into account any contamination. Your biased science is half baked.

The following is from the site,
Dinosaur Soft Tissue
It is a rather long article. The quotes are extracted from it

"In 2003, Schweitzer received some chunks of T. rex thigh bone (femur), from a recently-excavated fossil skeleton from base of the Hell Creek formation in Montana. This formation has been dated by various radiometric means to about 65-68 million years ago."

"three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%".

"After an animal dies, the iron from the hemoglobin in their red blood cells can be released to interact with other tissues. ... iron can facilitate the formation of oxy radicals, which facilitate protein cross-linking in a manner analogous to the actions of tissue fixatives (e.g. formaldehyde), thus increasing resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion”.

The soft tissue was somewhat elastic and found to be "highly crosslinked collagen"

As far as diamonds the author verifies what I said,
"Doing carbon 14 dating on dinosaur fossils often gives dates of 20,000-40,000 years old, and trying to carbon date things like graphite and diamond often gives dates of around 50,000 years old. That is exactly what we expect when a dating method is pushed to its limits and beyond...at around 50,000 years old it is less than one C14 in 300 trillion."

"the air, the water, and the ground are swimming in modern levels of C14, and it takes only the merest bit of modern contamination to make something made of solid carbon (e.g. graphite or diamond) that is a million years old look like it is 50,000 years old.

"contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating"
.

 

[Wuwei]

I said,
"That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence."
I totally disagree with your response.

Astrophysics isn't one of my strengths is science, so will let Dr. Lisle and Dr. Humphries explain that.

However I did watch the video. The first video by Jason Lisle: PhD Astrophysics was very odd for an astrophysicist. He denied basic physics.

He had several reasons to rationalize billions of year old galaxies in a 6,000 year old universe. However is message is replete with phrases such as "perhaps" or "interesting possibility" These are his points which deny basic physics

• Perhaps god is using an "anisotropic time zone." Similar to earth time zones. So it's not really an issue.
• Perhaps time flows more slowly in distant galaxies.
• Could be supernatural.
• The cosmic microwave background is so uniform. (He doesn't understand what it is.)
• It's not a problem for an infinite God.

What he is doing is assuming the result (creationism) and denying proven physics to do that. I really think this guy is very dim because an astrophysics would construct a more detailed model to support his gish gallop.

The second video started with too many long pauses and was biblical in nature. I only got about 1/3 of the way through it until Humphries took Einstein out of context.

.

 

[miketx]

And we are close to finding exomoons:

Have Astronomers Detected Exomoons At Last? - Sky & Telescope

No but they aren't far from discovering exomorons.