Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

[cassini]

Oh yeah your cut and paste job from the “Geocentricism support group.”.

When probes goto other planets and return to earth the calculations are carried out with the earth orbiting the sun.

"When the spacecraft falls back from the Martian orbit, it will enter an elliptical transfer orbit that will encompass pi radians (half an orbit) so that it is **tangential to both the terrestrial and Martian orbits. **

**As the Earth moves around the Sun faster than Mars **(its angular velocity is nearly double that of Mars, Mars must be advanced with respect to Earth to allow the Earth to intercept the slower spacecraft."

http://library.thinkquest.org/12145/emreturn.gif

I love your theory on by what mechanisms the sun orbits the earth… “God did it”!!! Only one small problem… The motion of our earth orbiting the sun due to gravity fits PERFECTLY, and guess what we know that our calculations regarding gravity are SPOT ON. How? Well we have empirical evidence in the form of every object we have ever put into orbit round a solar body. Yep we can work out orbits based on different masses, and GUESS WHAT??? We always get it right!!! Wow go figure, eh?

So how by your theory how do you explain the fact that the massive gravitational pull of the sun is MISSING??? Well actually is not missing, it effects every planet, apart from earth! lol

You also did not answer my question, why is it we NEVER see mars in between the earth and the sun? Based on your system we should.

Albert, I have long known that it is a waste of time trying to get Copernicans to stop trying to prove what is unprovable. For every Proof of H you give, I can put it into a G framework and claim it is also proof for G.
You obviously do not read MY stuff properly (OH yes, everything I write I have written myself except for direct quotes from named persons.) Here above you again come back to NEWTON’s gravity. Like Domenico Cassini I too reject Newton’s gravity as no more than a theory of his to fit the SS he wanted. So why do you offer it up as a fact that I have to answer.

And as for your BRILLIANT catch-him-out-knowledge:

You also did not answer my question,
why is it we NEVER see mars in between the earth and the sun?
Based on your system we should?

Look up the Tychonian system again. I would put it up here but do not know how. In it you will find that ONLY Venus and Mercury remain in orbits between the earth and the sun. MARS, Jupiter and Saturn NEVER come between the earth and the sun, just like the H system. Now this I take as a genuine mistake of yours Albert due to the fact that we cannot know every detail of subjects we have not studied intimately. All I ask is for you to TRUST ME Albert, accept that for 20 years I too had to learn how to understanf G relativity from my original acceptance of H as an undisputable fact. It took me ages to get my MIND around it. I succeeded because I wanted to understand. I was on a quest for thruth. I am not an idiot, nor would I stand on this forum being treated as an idiot if there was ONE chance of my being proven wrong.

Once any of us see that both systems are PERFECTLY viable, then go chose the one you prefer. You have the advantage in that the Geocentric system was abandoned on ideological grounds BEFORE this system could build up some physics theory for it. But please do not bother using your H physics as a PROOF for H. As yet, man hasn’t a clue what GRAVITY IS or how it truly works.

 

[dz102789]

Except for your penultimate sentence, you are right. Your conclusion is absolutely correct. However, there are some fundamental beliefs which are commonly held by Abrahamic religions and definitely held by the Catholic Church, which are in direct contradiction with fundamental laws of physics.

Forget Darwinism— that’s just another religion, whose existence is a symptom of a greater problem. The fundamental contradictions are not surmountable without a major paradigm shift on the parts of both religion and science, and that’s not going to happen.

Greylorn,

I appreciate your post, but i need specific examples. The only current problem I see between science and the Catholic Church is the idea of polygenism, which was dismissed by Pope Paul VI. I personally think that the two can be reconciled and one day will be.The only reason the pope dismissed it is because he said he couldn’t see how it was theologically possible to reconcile the ideas of polygenism and original sin, but i certainly believe they can be and will be.

In Christ,

Dave

 

[cassini]

I just can’t bring myself to debate that one. Glad you are able to.

Incredibly, there are still Flat Earther’s around, and obviously many people who still believe the world is only 6-10 thousand years old.

I’ll refrain from say anything about living fossils.

I pray that readers of this thread are following the debate better than those participating in it. I have posted knowledge Itinerant, and all you seem to utter is RHETORIC.

But I will answer this post anyway, not so much for you but for others who may be reading and following the debate. First a post of mine I put up earlier somewhere:

The Earth: a Sphere or Flat?

Any mention of the pre-Copernican geocentric or earth-centred reality today would without a doubt be replied to with a reference to what moderns deem a sister ignorance or naivety, belief in a flat earth. This would be the standard reaction for a generation led to believe we are more intelligent and knowledgable than those ignoramuses of historic times and especially those Bible-thumping Churchmen of the Middle Ages and the seventeenth century. But the hard fact is that the only ‘flat-earthers’ among the great geocentricists of old exist in the sceptics’ prejudices, for it is a long time since that notion was seen off. The first recorded science-lesson as to the shape of the earth appeared in Isaias, yes, in the Old Testament, the Bible itself:

‘It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.’ — Ch. 40:22.

That the earth is a globe was also the conclusion of ancient science. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also demonstrated to them a sphere and of course the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon illustrates the curved nature of the earth. So no, nobody had to show the Church or the philosophers and astronomers of 5,700 years something they didn’t know already, as the Copernican propagandists would have us believe.

See how predictable your RHETORIC has become itinerant? But back to WHY DO I DEFEND THE GEOCENTRIC SYSTEM? I do because I HAVE to, to try to get justice for the Popes, saint and theologians of 1616/1633. It was THIS SYSTEM that God Permitted them to define as revelation. I do so after years of thought on the Galileo affair. Like many I was fascinated by this one of the most infamous stories in history. All my life as a Catholic I depended on all those ‘excuses’ out there to come to terms that the Catholic Church, with its SUPPOSED DIVINE PROTECTION was ALLOWED BY GOD to make such a terrible ERROR OF JUDGEMENT. I fell for all that Bull about it not being infallible and its being disciplinary awaiting for science to establish the truth of it. So about 20 years ago I began to read EVERYTHING I could on the subject. Soon I discovered that the name Galileo is in the index of more books than any other name on earth. Needless to say when I satisfied myself that the truth of G and H lies OUTSIDE the Human sciences, I KNEW a terrible error had been made by CATHOLICS and it didn’t happen in 1616 or 1633, but in 1741 and thereafter. I thought there would be dancing in the streets of Rome where Catholics, who are not ashamed to claim a Virgin Birth for Mary and Jesus, or a resurrection after a Crucifixion, would now rejoice in their Church being vindicated after 300+ years.
What I didn’t expect was that this heresy was entrenched into intellectual pride so deeply that very few Catholics would humiliate themselves just to vindicate the Church of 1616 and 1633. Whereas only atheists mock the believer in Christ and miracles, men of SCIENCE will mock those who take this Catholic belief of the Church’s reading of Scripture. And in the PSYCHE of the Copernicans, few want to be martyred by men of science. To be branded flat-earthers is the greatest humiliation of all.
So, intellectual martyrdom is all that awaits any who comes to a logical CATHOLIC solution to the Galileo riddle. It is all back to that Original Sin, intellectual pride. The Devil is truly the FATHER OF LIES.

Oh, and I already know the Copernican Catholics’ response to this too.

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

I disagree with this statement. The Church holds the fullness of Truth in terms of Faith and Morals, not science. Christ came to save sinners, not to discuss scientific findings, and that is the business of the Church. Yes, the Church does have a responsibility to make sure the findings of science are used in accord with the Gospel, but it is not there to make scientific discoveries. Yes, I know there has been and continues to be many a great member of the Church who is involved in science and has contributed greatly to it, but this is not the Church as a whole, this is a member of the Church. We should be obedient to Church teaching, but evolution is in no way against the faith. What we do need to be combating is the dangerous and false philosophies that are claiming science as their basis. Scientism is indeed quite dangerous and must be combated, but not science. Science should be embraced.

In Christ,

Dave

Science should not be embraced, especially as it is taught today. The anti-theists wait on the Church’s every word concerning science, and when she agress with them, she is praised, when she disagrees, she is without understanding.

Why should that concern them? It concerns them because their ideology is more important than Church teaching. In fact, their ideology must be injected into Church teaching as much as possible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

As I understand it from the bastion of Evolutonist apologism:

“Where the simple methods will produce an incorrect age, isochron methods will generally indicate the unsuitability of the object for dating.”

• which makes it sound like there is a handy cop-out option where the data doesn’t match

Although isochrons can indicate a discordia, isochron techniques are most commonly used to derive an accurate age measurement when there are uncertainties in the starting parent-daughter ratio. That such results yield accurate results for closed systems is indisputable and is evidenced by the fact that the same age is derived for samples from the same source using different decay series with a wide span of half-life.

If you are going to talk about isochrons, shouldn’t you as a bare minimum find out what isochrons are and how they work?

Thing is with dating, it all comes own to the question of - how long is a piece of string?

No it doesn’t - radiometric dating, based as it is on the fundamental physics of radioactive decay, is a powerful and accurate method of dating.

If environmental factors can affect dating, then you have to assume they effect it in a particular way. Without having been there, you have to go backward from radiometric reading to determine what effects might have been. But in doing so, are you not inventing the flow of enviromental effects to satisfy your assumption of what the dating shows?

No. The environment has no influence on nuclear decay rates. Those external factors which affect dating, such as post-formation shock, are well understood and detectable. In fact discordia can be used to date shock events where crystals are partly reset by shock. An example is the dating of the Chicxulub meteorite strike by determining the date of the partial resetting of zircons using discordia of different U-Pb decay series.

Reading up how the meteorite dating was the product of a search for something to make the stats add up between 2 divergent sciences, I can’t help but suspect that this may, for all we know, be a case of hammering square pegs into round holes in such profusity that we don’t easily notice that they’re square pegs at all!

You are indulging unreasonably in conspiracy theory.

Anyway, you still haven’t dealt with the initial question - why asume such meteorites come from the initial formation of the solar system at all?

As I said, you are given evidence, and then you fail to engage with it:
Claire Patterson, Age of meteorites and the earth, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *10, 230 - 237
Baker et al, Early planetesimal melting from an age of 4.5662 Gyr for differentiated meteorites, *Nature *436, 1127 - 1131
Manhes et al, U—Th—Pb systematics of the eucrite “Juvinas”: Precise age determination and evidence for exotic lead, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *48, 2247 - 2264
Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, which includes references to many more that concur on a date of 4.54 billion years.

I even went so far as to explain that meteorites are bodies in the circumstellar disc of the solar system that all yield the same age and which were formed at the time of first condensation of matter shortly before the accretion of the planets. Do you have a better explanation?

I mean the original source of the dating - this paper is from 2006, and is corroborative in nature

As I said, you are given evidence and you fail to engage with it. This paper (which is from 2008/2009, by the way - you don’t seem to have got past the line at the top of the first page which tells us that the paper was *typeset *by a LaTex version of 2006) and others based on observations of the CMB anisotropy are the main evidence for the figure of 13.7 billion years in the lambda-CDM model. The 13.7 billion year figure that people quote is *not *based on Sandage’s measurements of the Hubble constant. But when you are given evidence, you don’t seem to engage with it.

The problem is, that we simply can’t verify in a realistic way, whether any of such readings are true. I realise that these readings all make sense according to their internal logics - but you simply can’t know that such carefully designed inferences genuinely reflect the nature of that which you observe - because you have no evidence beyond the visual.

We have little evidence beyond the visual for the existence of stars, galaxies and so on. We have no evidence beyond our senses for anything in the natural world. Yours is a recipe for obfuscation and solipsism. It recommends that, even in the case of strong evidence that is consistent with all the physics that we know, we should avoid the immensely high confidence conclusion that the sun is a main sequence star burning hydrogen in the proton-proton reaction. It denies that we live in a universe so ordered that we can use our senses and our reason to derive truths about it, and that, I believe, runs counter to the Catholic view about the world.

I other words, such slender evidence, vigourously explored as it is, does nowt to prove anything when it can’t be verified by anything other than mutually supporting, vigourously explored, slender evidence of the same kind

I am afraid that calling the evidence for the physics of stars and the sun “slender” says more about your willingness to engage with evidence than about anything else.

I was precisely right when I said that you demand evidence but refuse to engage with it when it is given to you. If you go here, you will find a small article in which I provide an elementary introduction to stellar physics (and incidentally show how globular clusters put a lower limit on the age of the universe of 11 billion years). I recommend it to you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com