@sonhouse saidYou can have spot-on math, that is never the question a high school student can do calculations for rates and distances, but why they are, or how long they have been there, where were they X amount of time ago before we saw them, are not questions the math on rates and distances alone can give you. I expect you to use your brain to look at what is being said and question it for yourself and not just buy whatever is being pushed onto you.
@KellyJay
So you would say expect me, a technician with a couple years of college to write some kind of paper refuting some claim of a theory I object to?
Did you forget about the part where you need to know a good deal about math and I know you are expert in your field of coding but let's see you transfer that to proving 100 years of scientific work is wrong dating a frig ...[text shortened]... ink someone like that would get anywhere trying to Popper up the Earth not being more or less round?
@KellyJay
If you feel that strongly about it, come up with a viable argument that would pass muster by the dudes who vet such work. You can't just poo poo hundreds of years of scientific research by saying they are nuts here on RHP and expect anyone to believe you, as it is you are talking opinion and nothing else.
For one thing, there are a half dozen different ways to age stuff on Earth and in the stars. Like fossil trees for instance, the know good and well there are variations in the tree ring widths in each ring based on how the weather was back then and then they can use that as a way to see if what they suspected about a certain date where some kind of weather happened, ice ages, whatever, the tree ring data can show major changes in weather, dry conditions for a year or two followed by wet years will show up in Tree rings and not just modern trees, fossil trees have fossilized tree rings that show differences and they can tie that to times when the tree was alive.
Its not about making a blank statement, X is 34 million years old.
It is about making the statement X is 34 million years old based on these four separate technologies which together gives confidence X is in fact somewhere around 34 megayears old. And they never say it is 34,302,439 years old they ALWAYS say 34 million years plus or minus say 10% or so and they can back those numbers up by the confluence of several different technologies.
@sonhouse saidDo you want to address my points or just appeal to 100 years of research as if that is a sacred cow of sorts?
@KellyJay
If you feel that strongly about it, come up with a viable argument that would pass muster by the dudes who vet such work. You can't just poo poo hundreds of years of scientific research by saying they are nuts here on RHP and expect anyone to believe you, as it is you are talking opinion and nothing else.
For one thing, there are a half dozen different ways to ag ...[text shortened]... ay 10% or so and they can back those numbers up by the confluence of several different technologies.
@sonhouse saidWhy are you arguing about the age as if time was something I am disputing? I already told you to pick any time you want, you do not have to provide reasoning. The processes are what matters, what is required, what were the necessary conditions, and how much change needs to occur in the time it started to reach what we see today. You can have as many billions of years as you want, I don't care.
@KellyJay
If you feel that strongly about it, come up with a viable argument that would pass muster by the dudes who vet such work. You can't just poo poo hundreds of years of scientific research by saying they are nuts here on RHP and expect anyone to believe you, as it is you are talking opinion and nothing else.
For one thing, there are a half dozen different ways to ag ...[text shortened]... ay 10% or so and they can back those numbers up by the confluence of several different technologies.
@KellyJay
Then what is your bitch? I am not a scientist, if you feel that strongly about it, I can ask my son in law who IS a physicist what makes you think the process is wrong.
Have you studied the process? I told you there are a half dozen techniques thought up to date stuff and after all is said and done they agree with each other which is a good sign the dates are real. Did you ever research what those techniques are? Like photoionization or cosmic ray damage or why Carbon 13 V Carbon 12 means something about the age of organic material.
Or radio isotope analysis like radioactive materials have a half life so if you get a sample of say uranium in a very old sample you can deduce the age by how much the Uranium has turned to Thorium, actinium and such, specific isotopes so the ratio of those elements shows how long that sample has been buried where cosmic rays cant get to that sample so it's natural radioactive decay and a close analysis of the decay products turns that sample into a clock.
Do you for instance, doubt that radioactives have some kind of half life and decay into other elements?
@sonhouse saidI again, am not sure how many times I have to say this to you for you to understand, I don't care about your dating methods, pick a date, any date, it doesn't matter to me how you got it. From there we can discuss processes, what are the mechanisms that are in play that can take dead dirt and bring it to life, an event in the distant past that was chaotic that started the universe, and explain how it turned into fine-tuning one we see now, where the instructions that govern life's integrated processes come from?
@KellyJay
Then what is your bitch? I am not a scientist, if you feel that strongly about it, I can ask my son in law who IS a physicist what makes you think the process is wrong.
Have you studied the process? I told you there are a half dozen techniques thought up to date stuff and after all is said and done they agree with each other which is a good sign the dates are rea ...[text shortened]... you for instance, doubt that radioactives have some kind of half life and decay into other elements?
@KellyJay
And the only explain you come up with is God did it. You cannot accept the fact the universe, OUR universe anyway, if there are others, this universe has laws of physics that allow for life to form and it doesn't have to be a god to do it.
Maybe a god did the laws of physics such that life is inevitable if there are any half way decent conditions, like a planet being in the 'goldilocks' zone, that is, where the solar energy coming from said star is enough at the distance the planet is from said star, that water can be liquid. Then if there are weather conditions, lightning, or those tube vents spewing ultrahot water and minerals, it is clear there is life around those hydro jets, but I don't think you would accept ANY other explanation for life on Earth other than god did it no matter how that evidence is born out.
For instance, we now know Mars once had an atmosphere dense enough to let liquid water to flow and lakes and seas and such and in whatever, 20 years and we get to Mars or a Mars sample retrieval gets done, what would you say if we found fossil life there? That would put the origin of life to include at least two places in our solar system alone. Or the mission to Europa, I think that is the one spewing water a thousand miles into space because the tidal interactions with Jupiter heats up the inside of that moon to such an extent they can measure the presence of extremely deep oceans with more water there than all of Earth. So some of it gets jetted out into space and there is a probe going there that will scoop up some of that water and what would you say if they found life there also? Bacteria or more advance, it would show life can form anywhere conditions are halfway decent.
Would you deny discoveries like that, and I know total hypothesis right now, but in the future maybe before you die such life is discovered, would you deny there was life found there?
@sonhouse saidI am asking you for your answers to these questions, I'm assuming you have something you believe to be true, something in a purely materialistic methodology that accounts for all of the things we see in the universe. A purely material event can account for all that we see, or do we have to look outside of the material world, you tell me? I'm asking you for something we can compare so there is no need for God to do it, you do have something? Can we explain the universe and everything in the universe by looking only at the universe?
@KellyJay
And the only explain you come up with is God did it. You cannot accept the fact the universe, OUR universe anyway, if there are others, this universe has laws of physics that allow for life to form and it doesn't have to be a god to do it.
Maybe a god did the laws of physics such that life is inevitable if there are any half way decent conditions, like a planet b ...[text shortened]... the future maybe before you die such life is discovered, would you deny there was life found there?
@KellyJay
There are obviously things about the universe we don't know and may never know, like what is dark energy or dark matter or are there other universes, these are cosmological questions pondered for decades.
Are you saying as far as dating goes you don't believe in stuff like radioactive decay? Where Uranium decays to other elements like Thorium and has a definite half life time and we can use that effect to tell extremely deep time frames, good estimates anyway? Or do you think closer in effects like tree rings cannot be used to see how old a tree is and the weather conditions based on the width of each ring, where for instance, a wet summer would produce a wider ring and therefore just looking close at rings you can get a rough idea of the weather in the area of that tree that can date hundreds or even thousands of years, all that is bogus?
This IS process I am talking about. For you, is that process real or not?
And how am I supposed to know what lead to life where the most I can see is if a god made life it made it by making the laws of physics in our universe set up in such a way as to be good for the origins of life, which to me says there should be life anywhere conditions are halfway decent like a planet being in the goldilocks zone and said planet having a magnetic field like Earth which really protects against solar storms and such and an atmosphere thick enough to allow liquid water and energy of some sort and minerals enough for the grand experiments of nature to come up with life from mud. You obviously cannot ever accept that as a possibility but I don't see a god making this universe just for humans, there are stars by the quadrillions in this universe we didn't even know about till Galileo invented the telescope with the express purpose of looking UP instead of across the landscape.
I can see a situation where say our solar system is the ONLY one in the universe and it just HAPPENS humans can evolve here on THIS planet only. Under conditions like that it might be a strong argument we were built by something or someone but with literally near uncountable stars, don't see ANY situation where a god would put all that out there and then go, JUST THIS planet can have life......
@sonhouse saidAlthough it does matter how much time was involved, it becomes a meaningless question with God, because the length of time would not put any burden on God who is transcendent to time, space, and so on in our universe. Where the real questions come into place is without an agent with an agenda could any of this occur through any other means? We are transcendent beings in this universe, we can produce meaning by arranging the material in the universe so that it is recognizable to others.
@KellyJay
There are obviously things about the universe we don't know and may never know, like what is dark energy or dark matter or are there other universes, these are cosmological questions pondered for decades.
Are you saying as far as dating goes you don't believe in stuff like radioactive decay? Where Uranium decays to other elements like Thorium and has a definite h ...[text shortened]... situation where a god would put all that out there and then go, JUST THIS planet can have life......
That leaves but two possible causes for the arrangement in the universe itself and life was an agent involved? I keep telling you how much time doesn't matter, when you write a paragraph and I can read it does it matter that it took you 4 minutes to write it or 4 years? The fact meaningful words were arraigned in any medium in the material world speaks to an agent with a mind.
@KellyJay
A detailed way to deflect from just a simple post.
Forgetting the religious POV, do you not accept the fact there is radioactive decay? And relativity in general, like time dilation depending on the mass of a nearby object or the distance to a gravity field.
A simple yes or no two times would suffice.