Posted on 05/16/2014 12:34:41 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Human history doesn’t go back further than about 6000 years, but our metrics to gauge the age of some materials exponentially rank into earlier times.
One must discern which object has more veracity, radiocarbon dating techniques or the Word of God.
About as much veracity as I can attribute to radiocarbon dating, is that it is a metric with many assumptions, when consistently applied to various materials, may provide a relative dating technique in very large numbers.
When I compare various objects from ancient history tested by those metrics and observe their measurements vary by as much as around 2/3 their elapsed age, I have good justification to doubt veracity of the dating technique.
More in depth study in quantum mechanics and their mathematical basis, indicates older specimens might have ages calculated based upon exponentials of exponentials of other exponentials, allowing for very large absolute number errors. Something that might be thousands of years old might be calculated as billions of years old, without further statement of the assumptions made in the calculations.
Without a known gauge with independently verifiable age, the calculation techniques may have some relative value, but lack veritable acceptance as an absolute dating technique.
In the example provided, no mention is even made of hard water effects on radiocarbon dating, which could easily vary the calculated age by about a factor of 2-4.
Even less veritable is the presumptions at the end of the article attributing a motive for the person whose skull was found in a cave, for having entered the cave. Authors prone to such presumptive hypotheses, hardly manifest a discipline to respect indubitable veracity.
Funny thing, is that they might be able to have contributed significant findings in their search, had they simply remained dedicated to finding the truth, instead of reading their worldview into their observations.
The fundamental constants of the universe are not subject to change. That is true regardless of our ability to measure them accurately and precisely, and it would be true if we had no ability to measure them at all. Those constants existed long before we were able to measure them, and they will continue to exist long after our sun dims and life can no longer survive on earth.
The speed of light is a fundamental constant, and that article does not say otherwise. What that article says is not that the speed of light is variable, but that the density of subatomic particles may hinder the passage of light by causing it to enter and exit each particle during its passage through space. So if there are regions of space that contain more subatomic particles than other regions, the apparent speed of light will be slower there. The proposed effect of those subatomic particles is also so tiny that it will be very difficult to measure.
I will point out that the physics paper described in that article is a hypothetical paper, which means that its premise is consistent with existing theory and observation, but it has not yet been experimentally verified.
We already know that light interacts with matter; physicists established long ago that the apparent speed of light in air is less than in space, and its apparent speed in water is slower than in air. When light is absorbed by a particle, it becomes energy; when the energy is emitted by that particle, it becomes light. The speed of the light does not actually change; that apparent change is an artifact caused by the length of time light spends converted to energy within the particle.
The apparent speed of light is also affected by gravity. The stronger the gravity field is, the slower light goes. The only way to observe this is from a distance (for example, by looking at a black hole somewhere in the middle of the Milky Way). If you are subjected to the same gravitational field as the light, then relativistic effects cause the light speed you observe to remain at 300,000 km/sec--even if a distant observer sees the light traveling at only 250,000 km/sec in that same gravity field.
Actually, what strikes me is that Jesus was extremely fond of using allegory to teach moral lessons. It looks to me like Jesus, in those passages you quoted, was reiterating the creation stories in order to reinforce the moral lessons taught there. An allegory may be used to teach a true moral lesson, without being a literal account. There are many levels of truth.
I don't think that when Jesus said to not worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye before removing the plank from your own eye, He was talking about people literally walking around with boards in their eyes.
Really? Do you have scientific references for that assertion, or did you pick up that "fact" at a creationist website? I know that creationist con men (like Ken Ham) love to expound on the supposed inaccuracy of radiometric dating, taking advantage of an audience that has no clue how such methods actually work.
More in depth study in quantum mechanics and their mathematical basis, indicates older specimens might have ages calculated based upon exponentials of exponentials of other exponentials, allowing for very large absolute number errors.
What on earth is that supposed to even mean? I notice that you are using a lot of words without much apparent understanding of what they really mean. Do you know what logarithms and exponents are, or what a logarithmic function is? Do you know how to calculate them? Do you know what quantum mechanics is? Do you have any idea how radiometric sample dating even works?
I've often suspected that the website "Fundies say the darndest things" mostly portrays people saying profoundly ignorant things while pretending to be Christians in order to make Christians look like uneducated hicks. Sometimes, however, I'm not so sure.
The fundamental flaw in science these days is that it forgets that it knows no FACT. It assumes, in it's hubris, to KNOW.
What science has discovered and ordained as 'fundamental constants' need not be 'fundamental' nor 'constant'.
As an example, simply tie time to entropy. If time is subject to entropy, and follows the standard rate of decay, then any equation assuming time is constant (the equation determining 'work' as an example) is highly flawed. Such an equation would seem to work perfectly today, and would seem to be highly provable... But applying the same to long ranging equations would cause them to become wildly inaccurate...
and while my little example here is eminently plausible, it is no more provable than any extrapolations performed by science, because the actual bonafide witnesses we have cannot be found beyond the advent of human records, and all that my premise would do in practice is bump the far end of time (the 'beginning') exponentially closer to now (in comparison to current models). In doing so, the 'change' could still be beyond our human witness.
Your statement above is exactly what I rise to oppose. Rigid constants may well be variables across the vast expanses being measured - Scientific extrapolations are so dramatically extrapolated without any assurance in their measurements, and that assumption can be fatal - Which is precisely why REAL science does not presume to 'know'.
LOL! So one must remain within the assumptions of science in order to prove against those very assumptions? Again. Hubris.
You may want to study some basics in multivariate math, say the first several Chapters of Morse and Feshbach to understand my expressions of exponential functionals. You might also complement your expressions with a Little, Brown Handbook.
Funny you should ask.
Two objects attributed to near ancient history, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls have been well studied by multiple parties. Many atheistic scholars have tested and placed the age to the Shroud circa 1260-1390AD, while other atheists have tested the Dead Sea Scrolls / pottery and aged their materials to within 100 years of Christ.
Both are highly scrutinized as being possibly non-authentic by believers, but they admit a historical custodial trail of the Shroud dating back to 1353, but that custody had been reported to have come from the time of Incarnation. This is further implied by Sinai Icon and the Image of Edessa circa 525AD, both appear similar to the image on the Shroud.
Meanwhile, after custodial histories and their appearance strongly reinforce obvious assertions, later scientific appeals by atheists now claim their original dating techniques were errant.
This leads us to consider all the other less scrutinized cases of radiocarbon dating. If two specimens with widely publicized custodial histories, might be independently traceable from radiocarbon dating to about 2000 years in age, but radiocarbon dating ranges to dates 2/3 to 1/10 off the custodial ages, one is lead to accept radiocarbon dating has some relative merit, but absolute accuracy in its dating is dubious at best.
Perhaps if the scientific community would fund research from a perspective which recognizes Scriptural guidance, instead of trying to always disprove Creation, it would discover far more valuable lessons to benefit all mankind.
Um, okay.
Anyone who has actually studied physics to the level of being familiar with the concepts of theoretical physics would know that exponential/logarithmic functions are quite simple and basic math which do not involve multivariate analysis. This is high school level math.
Also, anyone who is knowledgeable about theoretical physics knows that the rate of radioactive decay is invariable.
FYI, the reason I keep lumping exponents together with logarithms is that they are inverse functions--like multiplication is the inverse function of division.
Let me help you out a little: radioactive decay is described by the equation,
A=A0e-(kt/T1/2),
where A is the current quantity of the material,
A0 is the starting quantity of the material,
e is the "natural number", which has a value of ~2.71,
k is the decay constant which is ~0.693,
t is the elapsed time of decay (time since quantity A0 existed), and
T1/2 is the half-life of the material.
(The reason I put the tilde on those numbers is because they are truncated after 3 significant digits. They are like pi, in that they have an infinite number of digits after the decimal point.) In order to measure how old a sample is, all you need to do is to measure the quantities of the radioisotope and its decay products. From that, you can determine the starting quantity. (There are other ways to determine starting quantity, as well.) After that, it is just a matter of solving for t and plugging in numbers to determine how old the substance is. The technique is only inaccurate at the extremes: at the beginning, when too little time has elapsed to observe any radioactive decay, and at the end when there is too little radioisotope left to measure. In between those extremes, the technique is quite precise.
BTW, the mathematical formula used to calculate radioactive decay is the same formula used to calculate compound interest on your savings account. Have you ever seen the interest earned on your account jump around the way Answers In Genesis claims elapsed time determined by radioisotope dating jumps around? I'd go so far as to say that if the amount of interest your account earns is drastically different from month to month, then either the balance has significantly changed, or the interest rate has changed.
To express e, remember to memorize a sentence to simplify this...i.e. 2.7182818284
BTW, your argument begs the question.
When Rutherford used the Euler constant/Napier log to express a radioactive decay rate, he was simply beginning with a mathematical form associated with a decay rate that was NOT constant, but which was diminishing with time.
~0.693 is simply the natural log of 2, i.e. for a half life of that mathematical form used to express decay. k, t, and tau might be very complicated expressions for any given material and situation.
The form he used doesn’t address a beginning point, but instead assumes the function is infinite in both directions. He probably should have begun with Laplace transforms since they begin at t=0.
The formula used as a radioactive decay rate, assumes a material will statistically decay at a rate proportional to the remaining unstable states within that material.
I don’t think I would hinge my eternal destiny based upon such an assumption.
The use of natural logs is simply a mathematical tool used to simplify equations in the identification problem. They are only as useful as they might identify with actual measurables. It’s important to understand the assumptions made in those expressions, what they mean, and how they are identifiable or translatable to physical phenomenon.
Ask an accountant about how many different ways one can compound interest. The same might be said about radioactive decay, and it isn’t always simply calculated.
A more fruitful study is probably to study Scripture to see what God provides us, indicating when a Dirac delta or Heaviside jump isn’t more appropriate in the initial problem formulation of historical physical laws.
Absolute non-sequitur.
Reality says one thing, even down to the fundamental constants of the universe. The Bible says another. My eternal destiny does not depend on my ability to disbelieve reality in favor of literally believing the Bible. Furthermore, since the physical, observable universe is what God made, to believe that it is an illusion and only the description given in the Bible is accurate is to believe that God is a liar. I do not consider a lying God worthy of worship. The Bible is a moral guide, and the truths it tells are moral--not physical--truths.
FYI, just because a simple equation has a rather complicated derivation does not mean that it is necessary for the derivation to be performed every time one wants to calculate a value with that equation. The only reason students are walked through such derivations is so that they understand the basis of the equation.
When Rutherford used the Euler constant/Napier log to express a radioactive decay rate, he was simply beginning with a mathematical form associated with a decay rate that was NOT constant, but which was diminishing with time.
Let's be absolutely clear here: radioactive decay is not linear, but it *is* constant. A graph of a quantity that decreases by half at a specific time interval does not form a straight line, but a logarithmic curve.
To express e, remember to memorize a sentence to simplify this...i.e. 2.7182818284
That's rather nonsensical, and it is also beside the point. To figure out how old a sample is, it is not necessary to know e out to 50 digits... it is only necessary to accurately measure the amount of radioactivity in the sample. In fact, if you are solving for t (the age of the sample) in the equation I previously posted, you do not use e at all, since solving for t requires converting e to its logarithmic function.
Also, I should point out that extending e out to any number of digits does not significantly alter the length of time that a radioisotope has been decaying. You earlier claimed that there were huge errors in measurements using radiometric dating techniques--whether you use e to three significant digits or three hundred, it has little effect on the calculation. A determination of 1.5 million years is not significantly different than 1.49285693 million years.
The use of natural logs is simply a mathematical tool used to simplify equations in the identification problem. They are only as useful as they might identify with actual measurables. It’s important to understand the assumptions made in those expressions, what they mean, and how they are identifiable or translatable to physical phenomenon.
We live in a world of logarithms; our brains are hard-wired to perceive the world through a logarithmic function. That means that logarithms are not "mathematical tools", but are the basic language of our existence.
This statement highlights the difference between academics and education. An educated student not only understands the academic basis, he also learns to assumptions used in rational argument to understand how to think.
I don't think you understand my meaning when I communicate your argument begs the question.
He did more than make the Universe. He created it.
If there are any empirical arguments in disagreement with His literal Word, His Word still isn't disproven by Rationalism. More importantly, there is a spiritual domain perceived by faith, which influences our perceptions.
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.