Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
Being a fool, you continue to address a strawman. Dr Schroeder does not address time dilation. But I can see why you are so desperate to attack that notion. I’m sure you are legendary ... in your own mind. Enjoy your weekend.
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your estimate of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story; it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."
That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning.
This totally leaves out the real reason for why scientists generally believed that the universe was eternal, and that's Hoyle's Steady State Theory. He tries to make it seem like scientists had no more understanding of the age of the universe than Aristotle, and also leaves leaves out Lemaitre, who is the real pioneer of the Big Bang, which he called the primordial atom.
Yes, the cosmic microwave background was one of the final nails in the Steady State coffin, and helped vindicate Lemaitre, but both theories were known to the scientific community and had already developed into a heated debate. They weren't subscribing to an eternal universe because of ancient Greek philosophy; many supported it because it had the full backing of Fred Hoyle, who'd been formulating it since the late 40s.
Lemaitre was a priest who was a friend of Einstein, and when the Church tried to use Lemaitre's theory as proof of Genesis, Lemaitre wrote a letter to the Pope and told him to knock it off; his work in cosmology and physics was science, not religion.
If you've got something more entertaining than time dilation, I want to hear it.
How can you say that he doesn't address time dilation?
He talks about the concept all through the essay. Did you even read it?
I will admit that after reading your other posts in other threads you (and you alone) had doubts about Nye after the announcement of the debate, but did you feel the same way before the announcement of the debate? Many Evos that praised Nye did not want him to debate Ham; it was easy to hedge their bets like you did
"I can go back further if you want to know what I've been saying about Bill Nye all along, but I gather you aren't an evidence-based person, so it's probably a waste of my time."
No, it would not; show me that you did not like Nye BEFORE the announcement of the debate and I will admit that you are an exception. But even if I have to admit that you are an exception (which I will not until you show me your evidence) your post was still a perfect example of my point – thank you!
Figures, no answer. And you conveniently left out what I also stated; "Funny, it seems that anything useful and/or beneficial from science has been created, not evolved."
Where? What verses? You’re mentioning things I have not heard of, or have read in the Bible here. If you want book, chapter and verse of anything I have described from the Bible, let me know and I will give it to you.
”Why is there no evidence whatsoever that a tribe of between 1 and 7 million people [as described in your infallible book] wandered around in the Egyptian desert for 40 years?”
Evidence has been found on this one. If I showed you that there is evidence, would you scoff at it? Most likely. But I’ll send the link this evening anyway that shows there is evidence for the sake of others who read these posts. (I’m blocked from the link where I’m at). Whether you believe it or not, that’s up to you, but others have admitted it is convincing.
”The Bible claims that "the sun stood still in the sky." Does the Bible then claim that the Earth is the center of the solar system? If not, and the Bible somehow magically predicts that the Earth itself turns [Hint: it does not say that anywhere] how exactly did the Earth stop turning at roughly 1000 miles per hour -- instantaneously -- without everything on the surface abruptly flying off into space?
Good question! God is not without His secrets. But He has released the answers to many in His books (plural) as He has seen fit. On this one, He wants us to keep on searching. Did I say that all the Bible can be explained? I did say that the Bible contains BOTH the natural and the supernatural.
“As for your nonsensical assertion that we can't prove that the earth is billions of years old, your tectonic plate "theory" is amusing, and wrong.”
Tell that to a bunch of Evo scientists at the USGS!” “So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics.”
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
“Scientists "believed" in the Bible before the Twentieth Century for two reasons: 1) It was dangerous not to, so many of them lied and pretended they did…”
Besides the debunked story about Galileo being forced to believe the Bible, site me some sources that this happened to all men of science as you imply?
“…and 2) the overwhelming evidence that the Bible has very little scientific, historical, or archaeological truth in it had not yet been exposed. Science in the Twentieth Century has revealed that the Bible is a book of faith and supernatural events, and not a science text by even the grandest stretch of the most fertile imagination in the world.”
Wow, your hatred of the Bible really shows here. You discount all the archaeological findings archaeologists have found because of the guidance the Bible, even in Israel? Man, you have a problem here I just can’t help you with if you truly believe this. Good luck!
“Please join the Flat Earth Society where at least you and similar kooks can hang out together, and stop giving conservatism a bad name.”
You are delusional if you think Darwinism/Evolutionism is associated with conservatism – it is just the opposite. In fact, it is the best tool Communism has had over the past century, and the result of millions of deaths.
I see that you have lost this debate since you now resort to straightforward insults. This particular debate with you has ended. Once again - good luck!
How do you keep a liberal Evo in suspense?
Debating is a tactic that helps in teaching. Indoctrination is a tactic in teaching too, in which you seem to agree with.
"When you listen to a debate about alchemy and chemistry, but are taught that they are both legitimate fields of study, you do a disservice to the student."
There is no disservice in letting students know what alchemy is and why people may think it is illegitimate or legitimate. It is a disservice keeping students from learning what it is. Children not taught of such things find out about them and don’t know what to do when confronted by them. It’s no wonder why kids get into witchcraft when they don’t learn what it is about in school but from their peers.
“Debates are great, but when it comes to teaching, you teach evolution in science class and creationism in a religious studies class, alongside other myths.”
Liberals have put a stop to any teaching from the Bible by law – the only way they could override the will of the parents. Now the myth here is that Evolution is taught as a fact in government schools.
Right, but when TEACHING, you need to make sure that you TEACH that alchemy is not legitimate.
Although knowing your level of scientific knowledge, I will leave open the possibility that you very well might believe alchemy is just another way of doing chemistry.
This thread is an example of people 'speaking past each other'. That is often the case when polarized minds approach a topic both sides want to dominate from their respective perspectives. It is absurd to address YEC as a scientific concept, but it is the basis of so many polarized minds.
Enters Schroeder, and Schroeder addresses the age of the Universe as if he is seeing two separate perspectives which can both be right and why. He explains the 6.5+ days Age as a perspective from the big bang looking to our epoch, using the doubling of the Universe of spacetime as a measuring tool roughly aligned to a twenty-four hour cycle. Admittedly, this is a cumbersome approach. But it does make sense when he then switches perspectives to address the Age from our epoch looking back to the big bang.
You address the two notions of the Age of the Universe as starting from a big bang and the steady-state/Hoyle notion of space and time always being, as the background in which matter and energy swirl through changes but remain eternal. This notion is very Smithian in nature (the Mormon founder, Joseph Smith) in that Mormonism posits matter as eternal and merely something manipulated by the god of Mormonism, not created by that god. The big bang posits space and time coming into existence with the big bang and Schroeder relates Nahmanides' idea that time takes hold very early in the expansion begun at the bang. Here's a bit from Schroeder's essay:
The Creation of Time
Each day of creation is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.
Additionally, this Creation scenario follows an intelligent design:
How we perceive time
We look at the universe, and say, "How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is approximately 15 billion years old." That's our view of time. But what is the Bible's view of time looking from the beginning? How does it see time?Nahmanides taught that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a description for the speck: something very tiny, smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life, Genesis 1:21) and the Neshama (the soul of human life, Genesis 1:27) are spiritual creations.
There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nahmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" - very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance, so thin that it has no material substance, turned into matter as we know it.
Nahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold" when matter condenses from the substance-less substance of the big bang creation. When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no material substance, that's when the biblical clock starts.
Defining that (Schroeder's creation scenario) expansion of the Universe with the phrase 'time dilation' is not ... well, not accurate. The notion of stretching space results from the perspective that space and time progressed from a speck to what we have now, with matter expanding into 'something' barely ahead but accelerating in expansion. Time, or if you prefer spacetime, is a volume. And this volume appears to be malleable. It is also nearly bursting with energy, the zero-point energy that drives the expansion and maintains the congealed state of energy known as matter.
One last point and I shall leave the finishing comments to your capable hands: when Schroeder brings Einstein and relativity into his essay, I tend to pay attention since Schroeder is very qualified to refer thereto as an instructor in such notions, with a lifetime of research and study on these facets of the Universe.
This thread is an example of people 'speaking past each other'. That is often the case when polarized minds approach a topic both sides want to dominate from their respective perspectives. It is absurd to address YEC as a scientific concept, but it is the basis of so many polarized minds.
Enters Schroeder, and Schroeder addresses the age of the Universe as if he is seeing two separate perspectives which can both be right and why. He explains the 6.5+ days Age as a perspective from the big bang looking to our epoch, using the doubling of the Universe of spacetime as a measuring tool roughly aligned to a twenty-four hour cycle. Admittedly, this is a cumbersome approach. But it does make sense when he then switches perspectives to address the Age from our epoch looking back to the big bang.
You address the two notions of the Age of the Universe as starting from a big bang and the steady-state/Hoyle notion of space and time always being, as the background in which matter and energy swirl through changes but remain eternal. This notion is very Smithian in nature (the Mormon founder, Joseph Smith) in that Mormonism posits matter as eternal and merely something manipulated by the god of Mormonism, not created by that god. The big bang posits space and time coming into existence with the big bang and Schroeder relates Nahmanides' idea that time takes hold very early in the expansion begun at the bang. Here's a bit from Schroeder's essay:
The Creation of Time
Each day of creation is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.
Additionally, this Creation scenario follows an intelligent design:
How we perceive time
We look at the universe, and say, "How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is approximately 15 billion years old." That's our view of time. But what is the Bible's view of time looking from the beginning? How does it see time?Nahmanides taught that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a description for the speck: something very tiny, smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life, Genesis 1:21) and the Neshama (the soul of human life, Genesis 1:27) are spiritual creations.
There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nahmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" - very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance, so thin that it has no material substance, turned into matter as we know it.
Nahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold" when matter condenses from the substance-less substance of the big bang creation. When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no material substance, that's when the biblical clock starts.
Defining that (Schroeder's creation scenario) expansion of the Universe with the phrase 'time dilation' is not ... well, not accurate. The notion of stretching space results from the perspective that space and time progressed from a speck to what we have now, with matter expanding into 'something' barely ahead but accelerating in expansion. Time, or if you prefer spacetime, is a volume. And this volume appears to be malleable. It is also nearly bursting with energy, the zero-point energy that drives the expansion and maintains the congealed state of energy known as matter.
One last point and I shall leave the finishing comments to your capable hands: when Schroeder brings Einstein and relativity into his essay, I tend to pay attention since Schroeder is very qualified to refer thereto as an instructor in such notions, with a lifetime of research and study on these facets of the Universe.
Whatever floats your boat man, it’s your world and the rest of us are just hangin’ on!
BTW, my glitch of ‘300,000 years’ is related to my preoccupation with “The Big Bang theory describes the early Universe as a sequence of eras which lasts until the Universe is about 300,000 years old.” I’m not a young earth creationist, obviously. Planck time is so ... small don’tchaknow.
There’s no need to get angry or upset but the science determining ages is not the fixed hard science you two believe it is. Science does not have all the answers to this stuff just b/c you were taught otherwise [thank God for the internet where everyone can voice an opinion!].
Can you explain polystrate fossils, you know fossils that divide many layers of strata that supposedly took greater than a million years to lay down?
How about recent blind carbon dating that indicated the presence of carbon-14 in dinosaurs? [remember carbon dating is only good for 65 thousand years not the claimed dino ages o 65 million or more].
Or have you bothered to read this list?
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
It was posted a couple of times on FR and no it is not debunked [that’s an answer I hear from others all the time without any statements or links to back up the debunking claims.
[excerpt follows]
Age of the earth
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
by Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009
There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today.
Can science prove the age of the earth?
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth or the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.
Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.
Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (13.77 billion years for the universe and 4.54 billion years for the solar system).
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth.
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.
Biological evidence for a young age of the earth
The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?
Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that Fred Hoyle was inspired by Joseph Smith, or that you think Joseph Smith made a contribution to cosmology?
Trying to make the case that Nahmanides stumbled upon General Relativity through Torah scholarship in the 13th century is, to put it mildly, ludicrous. It should go right alongside the claims of the modern Nostradamus fan club.
But that's fine for Schroeder to make it a hobby of his, and it makes for interesting reading.
But let us please, please keep in mind that what Schroeder is talking about is NOT Ham's Young Earth Creationism. Perception of time due to general relativity from the Big Bang is NOT flood geology. Schroeder is trying to reconcile how creation might have taken 6 days in the scheme of general relativity, NOT that the Earth is LITERALLY 6,000 YEARS OLD.
Can you point to ONE article that I can access that points to a 6,000 year old Earth? Just one.
LOL. Can there be anyone more out of touch with the real world than a trust fund baby geek from Sidwell Friends?
I left it out, because it's preposterously stupid. It's what is referred to by serious thinkers [that would not include you] as a category error. It's like saying: "Funny, notice that the number seven is not purple."
Evolution is a process, it doesn't in itself produce actions by living beings. "Funny, all the meat eaten by predators hasn't been eaten by evolution! Gotcha! Funny, all the thoughts thunk by brainy people haven't been thunk by evolution! Oooh, Oooh, reply to that!"
The only reply to such a silly claim is: DUH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.