I Want A More Definitive Understanding Of Scientific Beliefs

In regards to the speed of light, what I have heard that what when people say that they generally mean "the speed of light in a vacuum"... I'm normally a bit hesitant when it comes to ranging distances of the stars. I have tried to look up videos and diagrams to explain it to me and the closest I have come to understanding is a method called Parallax. But the fundamental principle, I see, that we are missing is perspective... (and ours is very limited). Don't quote me on this for I may be wrong, but aren't all of our measurements performed on Earth? It seems hard for me to grasp what an accurate reading of distances might entail if we are always measuring things while ON moving parts (some of which may be stationary). We've deduced a small fact that something (probably most of the celestial spheres) is moving. To give an analogy it's like stacking Jenga Blocks one on top of another; we've come to this conclusion based on a prior conclusion; we know THIS because of that; and so on and so forth. But the key thing is the Foundation, which if incorrect, makes all the "blocks" on top flawed. I'm more keen on trying to find out the roots, from which these branches (theories) came from. Hope I'm not rambling here...

I've heard of bouncing off light from the moon to judge distance... that seems pretty accurate to me. But the moon is relatively close to us... wouldn't jumping from the moon to the stars be quite the leap in judging distances?
 
In regards to the speed of light, what I have heard that what when people say that they generally mean "the speed of light in a vacuum"... I'm normally a bit hesitant when it comes to ranging distances of the stars. I have tried to look up videos and diagrams to explain it to me and the closest I have come to understanding is a method called Parallax. But the fundamental principle, I see, that we are missing is perspective... (and ours is very limited). Don't quote me on this for I may be wrong, but aren't all of our measurements performed on Earth? It seems hard for me to grasp what an accurate reading of distances might entail if we are always measuring things while ON moving parts (some of which may be stationary). We've deduced a small fact that something (probably most of the celestial spheres) is moving. To give an analogy it's like stacking Jenga Blocks one on top of another; we've come to this conclusion based on a prior conclusion; we know THIS because of that; and so on and so forth. But the key thing is the Foundation, which if incorrect, makes all the "blocks" on top flawed. I'm more keen on trying to find out the roots, from which these branches (theories) came from. Hope I'm not rambling here...

I've heard of bouncing off light from the moon to judge distance... that seems pretty accurate to me. But the moon is relatively close to us... wouldn't jumping from the moon to the stars be quite the leap in judging distances?

Parallax measurement has been fairly successful on only the nearest stars and the mathematics is accepted I'm sure you'll agree. It uses the extremes of the earths orbit to form the base of the 'triangle' effectively. No use for more distant stars of course and is wholly dependant on the increased accuracy of modern telescopes.

The moon distance measurements are purely to detect the rate that it is moving further away in orbit. The speed of light in that measurement is secondary.
 
Depends on who's doing the reporting. There's a tendency to throwout early dates because they can't possibly be correct.

The use of index fossils is an example of circular logic at work.

That link is entirely subjective with a creationist view to debunk a well accepted and well studied area of evolution. Like I said before, that type of thinking (creationism) has a purpose to disprove something that is only interested in finding (science) what really has brought us all here.

I'm happy to carry on discussing this particular point however if you wish but my knowledge is limited and you will no doubt pick holes in it quite easily.
 
That link is entirely subjective with a creationist view to debunk a well accepted and well studied area of evolution. Like I said before, that type of thinking (creationism) has a purpose to disprove something that is only interested in finding (science) what really has brought us all here.

I'm happy to carry on discussing this particular point however if you wish but my knowledge is limited and you will no doubt pick holes in it quite easily.
Yes, it's from a creationist website, but the point is the same.

Why are these old rocks? Because they have old fossils. Why are they old fossils? Because they're in old rocks.
 
Yes, it's from a creationist website, but the point is the same.

Why are these old rocks? Because they have old fossils. Why are they old fossils? Because they're in old rocks.

As I understand it, the same fossils are found in rocks of the same age. Your circular argument has no real observational data?
 
As I understand it, the same fossils are found in rocks of the same age. Your circular argument has no real observational data?
That's the point. You can't use so-called index fossils to date rocks.

Oh, and there's the problem where millions of tons of 'older' rock is found on top of 'younger'.
 
That's the point. You can't use so-called index fossils to date rocks.

Oh, and there's the problem where millions of tons of 'older' rock is found on top of 'younger'.

Earths crust is pushed up and contorted over billions of years, that's not a problem for geologists only for you perhaps.
 
Whitcomb and Morris do a much better job than I can.

I'd be glad to send you a copy if you provide me an address in a Conversation.
 
Whitcomb and Morris do a much better job than I can.

I'd be glad to send you a copy if you provide me an address in a Conversation.

Stephen Hawking does a much better job of black hole theory and such. Darwin et al explain evolution in more detail than I can ever hope to convey but I prefer a forum to be a little more than that. A more personal direct conversation between people with the imperfections in the arguments on either side.

It seems more real than continuous references to published theories or disproofs, links to youtube videos etc..

You can find more out about me and I can find more out about you without these distractions. Otherwise we dance around the boxing ring forever without ever hearing the final bell.

Having said that, I will send you my email address for you to send me your book and I'll try to give it due attention.
 
I don't see why this is a problem to be honest and I don't see your explanation of it. Please expand your comment.
Stephen Hawking does a much better job of black hole theory and such. Darwin et al explain evolution in more detail than I can ever hope to convey but I prefer a forum to be a little more than that. A more personal direct conversation between people with the imperfections in the arguments on either side.

It seems more real than continuous references to published theories or disproofs, links to youtube videos etc..

You can find more out about me and I can find more out about you without these distractions. Otherwise we dance around the boxing ring forever without ever hearing the final bell.
OK

The problem comes when hundreds of square miles of rock geologists would classify as old are found sitting on top of younger rock.

Remember that geologists follow what is known as uniformitarianism. This means ALL that we see in the earth's crust can be explained by forces observable today acting over vast periods of time. They do not believe in catastrophic occurrences such as the Flood.

Their explanation of thrust faults is physically impossible without some evidence of movement. But the older rock is sitting quite happily out of place.

The explanation I believe is that the rocks are both around the same age and were deposited just as they are by the catastrophe referred to as the Flood in Genesis.
 
While I don't believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth, I notice that this belief is fervently held and guarded by most of the scientific community. I want to know what methods they use to come to this conclusion, and how logically sound their theories are. I would like to have an in depth conversation about their dating methods, the problems with these methods, and how probable they actually are from an unbiased perspective.

My reason for wanting to discuss this is that I consider myself to be an amateur apologist (someone who can provide a compelling defense for their religious beliefs). To many of the unbelievers that I am friends and colleagues with, they consider the Bible to be mumbo jumbo, and I cannot effectively use the Bible to witness to them. I need sound logical evidence that their current belief systems are lies (although I am all-too-aware that some people refuse to consider Christianity no matter what)

So let's start with these two questions: Why do scientists believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? What dating methods are they using to deduce these theories?

Thank you for your participation, solving problems is so much easier when we all work together. =D
Interesting topic.
Let me pose a point or three here. Radioactive dating is "very complex" that equates to Mother answering little Johny's question "Why?" behave a certain way with because ...." I said so"
I want to suggest that radioactive dating is a 'stab in the dark at best.......why? (not because I said so;)) but because we simply do not and can not know enough about conditions that existed even just 1000 years ago, let alone an alleged 4.5 or so billion years ago.
The half life of unstable elements is what is used in radiometric dating, but............................
If we could start out with a sample of 100% pure uranium, the half life of that would be less that the probable life span of a single atom of uranium. (talking about the same unstable isotope)
So to put this in simple terms, the radioactive decay rate of unstable isotopes would not be linear but logarithmic in nature and without a definite known starting point, extrapolation is a fanciful guess at best.
So we/they assume a given isotope concentration at day dot, and assume a linear decay rate and bingo...we have a highly authoritative guess (sarcasm intended) at the age of something.
"older" rocks on top of "younger " rocks????? How can this in actual reality be? If the Earth was formed all at the same time (as surly it was) then this rock is just as old....or as young as that rock.
Something to ponder here:::
Pet 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,(not materially, but by process)
2Pet 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
I would like to suggest that here Peter is not talking about the world in the context of people, but rather the ball of rock we and they call home.

Though not detailed as a science paper, the flood account does suggest massive geologic upheaval (the fountains of the deep)* and so Peter's comment ..."the world that then was" could well embody an understanding that the ball of rock we call home now, is very different from the ball of rock preflood-ites called home.
* Recent surveys of offshore regions have discovered vast quantities of sub-ocean floor deposits of relatively fresh water. These might be/probably are what the Bible (written long ago) was referring to as the 'fountains of the deep'
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
So the flood was not only as a result of forty days of rain from above, but also from the welling up of waters contained below.

Gen 8:2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Just a few things to ponder and digest.:)
 
Last edited:
Rocks are very conveniently stated to come into being when they solidify from lava. Nevertheless the 'stuff' they are made of, and also the unstable isotopes used to date them have their origins back whenever...not when they solidified from lava,...something else to ponder.
 
Last edited:
Interesting points Calvin! Since you are talking about Genesis I would also like to elaborate a few points. Compare Genesis 1:6-7

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

...to Genesis 1:14-15,

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

What is being described is here that's there water down below (oceans), water up above (clouds or also mist) and above that the firmament which God put forth the sun, the moon, and the stars... and above THAT is more water. When I read this it's hard to grasp, but then I did a quick Google search. Apparently NASA claims to have found a large quantity in space that could "fill our oceans 140 trillion times over". Before telescopes and Hubble it's pretty amazing to imagine what ancient people were thinking of when they read these verses.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1769468/scientists-discover-oldest-largest-body-water-existence-space
 
OK
The problem comes when hundreds of square miles of rock geologists would classify as old are found sitting on top of younger rock.
Can you give me an example to consider please.

Remember that geologists follow what is known as uniformitarianism. This means ALL that we see in the earth's crust can be explained by forces observable today acting over vast periods of time. They do not believe in catastrophic occurrences such as the Flood.

Yes, forces in the earths crust are observable today and have acted over long periods of time but there is no observable evidence of a flood of the scale described in the bible. I agree.

Their explanation of thrust faults is physically impossible without some evidence of movement.

I don't understand that statement, sorry. Thrust faults are a result of tectonic movement, I don't remember seeing any theory that contradicts that. A thrust fault IS evidence of movement?

But the older rock is sitting quite happily out of place.

I don't remember reading any theory that has a problem explaning how older rock is found above younger rock. Presumably you refer to ancient sea fossils being found on mountains? All described by plate shifting as far as I know.

The explanation I believe is that the rocks are both around the same age and were deposited just as they are by the catastrophe referred to as the Flood in Genesis.

You're entitled to your belief, for me though, I don't see any evidence of that particular idea. You BELIEVE that the rocks are the same age and radiometric dating is trash effectively. I THINK that radiometric techniques offer the most accurate understanding of mineral ageing so far and that plate tectonics, which are MEASURED, describe how the earths crust behaves.
 
Back
Top