Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[vz71]

In point of fact, science cannot prove the earth is over 4 Billion years old.

It can provide evidence, but ultimately that is all it can do.

There is great latitude in how the evidence can be interpreted, and within this latitude is the difference between older and younger then 4 billion years.

 

[vz71]

Show me the proof that I am wrong.

You are the one that affirmed education to be tied in to this.
The burden of proof is yours.

 

[Lui]

You are the one that affirmed education to be tied in to this.
The burden of proof is yours.

You’re calling my statements false dichotomy fallacy. Then it’s up to you to prove it. If you can’t prove it, don’t comment on it.

 

[buffalo]

For me believing in YEC is as ignorant as believing in the Easter bunny. YEC is NOT a fact, sorry. It’s a fact that YEC is nonsense.

Well now - that solves it now doesn’t it.

A question - a person who believes the earth to be 100,000 years old is a YEC or Old Earther?

 

[Lui]

Well now - that solves it now doesn’t it.

A question - a person who believes the earth to be 100,000 years old is a YEC or Old Earther?

YEC.

 

[vz71]

You’re calling my statements false dichotomy fallacy. Then it’s up to you to prove it. If you can’t prove it, don’t comment on it.

I did.
Here it is again in case you missed it…

This time it is hidden, but you are setting up an argument between educated and uneducated where no such correlation has been established.

you should establish a basis for your conjecture before making it.

 

[buffalo]

YEC.

1 Billion?

 

[vz71]

1 Billion?

Forget it…no one will answer.

YEC will remain undefined, villified, and anyone in disagreement with whatever is in vogue will be accused of YEC.

 

[buffalo]

this is the initial claim but let’s see what develops…

**
**

Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun’s rotation: research

A team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun’s core.
The fluctuations appear to be very small but could lead to predictive tools for solar flares and may have an impact on medical radiation treatments.
This adds to evidence of swings in decay rates in response to solar activity and the distance between the Earth and the sun that Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years. The Purdue team previously reported observing a drop in the rate of decay that began a day and half before and peaked during the December 2006 solar flare and an annual fluctuation that appeared to be based on the Earth’s orbit of, and changing distance from, the sun, Jenkins said.

this is the initial claim but let’s see what develops…

“The fluctuations we’re seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings,” Fischbach said. (of course not) “One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we’ve discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn’t be one.”
Jenkins and Fischbach suggest that the changes in the decay rates are due to interactions with solar neutrinos, nearly weightless particles created by nuclear reactions within the sun’s core that travel almost at the speed of light.

 

[buffalo]

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?

When probing the deepest reaches of the Cosmos or magnifying our understanding of the quantum world, a whole host of mysteries present themselves. This is to be expected when pushing our knowledge of the Universe to the limit.
But what if a well-known – and apparently constant – characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?
This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with “constant” decay rates – these values aren’t supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Does Solar Flare Activity Effect the Rate of Radioactive Decay on Earth?

 

[inocente]

If one is a creationists and offers evidence it is batted away because the person is a creationist. (Did you even watch your own link?)

Don’t remember linking any videos . Big fan of evidence though, post all you want, start with a few peer reviewed articles from top journals giving the case for YEC, technical as you like (not ID though due to the ban).

 

[inocente]

The main problem I see is that good science will suffer the consequences and human reasoning will further fall victim to worldviews.

Thanks, you cracked me up.

 

[inocente]

Forget it…no one will answer.

YEC will remain undefined, villified, and anyone in disagreement with whatever is in vogue will be accused of YEC.

Hey, why so sad?

Anyhow, to answer the question no one will answer, never met any creationists here in Spain but I think YECs want the Earth < 10,000 years old, the rest accept whatever age is given by science but don’t accept evolution. Is there really a third kind who believes the world is 100,000 years old, another who thinks it’s 1 billion years old, etc.? Wow, I guess that’s what happens when no one is looking for evidence.

 

[vz71]

Hey, why so sad?

I’m not. Now. Thanks.
I was simply looking for a solid definition because I get pigeonholed way too often into something that I am not.

Anyhow, to answer the question no one will answer, never met any creationists here in Spain but I think YECs want the Earth < 10,000 years old, the rest accept whatever age is given by science but don’t accept evolution. Is there really a third kind who believes the world is 100,000 years old, another who thinks it’s 1 billion years old, etc.? Wow, I guess that’s what happens when no one is looking for evidence.

I do not know of third or even fourth catagories.
I just know what I am, and I am uncertain of how old the earth actually is.
I know there is radioactive decay rates we can utilize to extropolate.
But these assume a great deal about the constancy of the decay as well as the amount of material present to actually decay. And I am uncertain I wish to assume that.

The best science is the one that is not afraid to not know the answer.
And it appears to me that many are willing to accept assumptions rather then simply accept what we do not know.

 

[inocente]

Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun’s rotation: research

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?

Does Solar Flare Activity Effect the Rate of Radioactive Decay on Earth?

Very interesting but they’re just a highly selective pick of articles to try to frighten the horses, yet they don’t even come close - the error margin on the dating is 1% while to get from 4.5 million to 10,000 you need to find something that would raise it to around 50,000,000%.

Unless you can link to articles in real science journals that give a positive case for YEC the only point in claiming YEC is science would be if you think science is the only way to truth.

 

[vz71]

Very interesting but they’re just a highly selective pick of articles to try to frighten the horses, yet they don’t even come close - the error margin on the dating is 1% while to get from 4.5 million to 10,000 you need to find something that would raise it to around 50,000,000%.

Unless you can link to articles in real science journals that give a positive case for YEC the only point in claiming YEC is science would be if you think science is the only way to truth.

To ‘prove’ the world older then 4 billion, as opposed to 3.999 billion would be a much smaller margin.
And that is enough to tell us what we need to know.
It can’t prove much.

 

[Lui]

The best science is the one that is not afraid to not know the answer.
And it appears to me that many are willing to accept assumptions rather then simply accept what we do not know.

I don’t blindly follow science but as a kid I went to the Museum of Natural History in New York quite often. I also read a lot of books on the history of earth and how life developed. In other words my belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is as strong as the belief that the USA has 50 States or George Washington was the first President. I don’t care if one day science finds out the earth is 3 billion instead of 4.5 billion years old. I’m sure they are mostly right. When people suddenly claim that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dinos and humans lived together, then I just think
Seriously, there is a point when I can’t even argue anymore. It’s too mind-blowing stupidly ignorant for me.

I have no problem if a person says he does not believe the earth is exactly 4.5 billion years old and he just can’t say HOW old the earth is exactly. I just have a problem if a person claims the earth is 6000(or ten or even a hundred thousand) years old because the evidence against this theory is overwhelming.

 

[buffalo]

Very interesting but they’re just a highly selective pick of articles to try to frighten the horses, yet they don’t even come close - the error margin on the dating is 1% while to get from 4.5 million to 10,000 you need to find something that would raise it to around 50,000,000%.

Unless you can link to articles in real science journals that give a positive case for YEC the only point in claiming YEC is science would be if you think science is the only way to truth.

Everyone believed and taught that decay rates were constant. Oops…As I posted, let us see what develops…

Get real - a YEC article in a science journal? The gatekeepers will not allow it.

Connect the dots, sprinkle some time on it and voila a paradigm shift happens.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t blindly follow science but as a kid I went to the Museum of Natural History in New York quite often. I also read a lot of books on the history of earth and how life developed. I don’t care if one day science finds out the earth is 3 billion instead of 4.5 billion years old. I’m sure they are mostly right. When people suddenly claim that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dinos and humans lived together, then I just think
Seriously, there is a point when I can’t even argue anymore. It’s too mind-blowing stupidly ignorant for me.

I have no problem if a person says he does not believe the earth is exactly 4.5 billion years old and he just can’t say HOW old the earth is exactly. I just have a problem if a person claims the earth is 6000(or ten or even a hundred thousand) years old because the evidence against this theory is over-whelming.

You really haven’t argued anything. You only repeated what you were taught.

In terms of history the sudden claim is old age.

Present the overwhelming evidence and please include the base assumptions. (are these foundations made on sand?)