The Ravings Of A Creationist. Please Explain.

[Beakmoo]

This is from one of my new friends at the Rapture Ready message board. I don't understand it, but I hoped one of you clever people would.



" the mathmatics used to triangulate the position of stars and to determine their distance involve making calculations based on the earths position at opposite sides of it's orbit. the farthest stars that we can accurately measure are about 100 light years away, beyond that it's all speculation.
the method we use to determine that stars are moving away from us is based on the lengthening of the light rays emanating from them into the infrared spectrum, called red shift. it's interesting to note that ALL stars, no matter where they are in relation to the earth, show red shift, indicating they are moving away from the earth. does this mean the earth really IS the center of the universe? why are no stars observable coming towards us?
scientists have recently found that radioactive particles in granite bedrock PROVE that the rock could not have formed by a gradual cooling process. these particles radiate their mass away in seconds after their creation, therefore they would not have left any trace in rocks forming over even a few hours, much less than millions of years.
most evidence concerning creation is hidden and ignored by scientists, sinse putting this evidence forward is a good way to lose you're tenure and be laughed out of the scientific comunity."

Discuss.

 

[Anonymous]

So...the Earth is only a few hours old...? But it was here when I had breakfast this morning! I remember it clearly!

 

[TVgeek]

I think it was Carl Sagen who explained the red-shift
explanation by putting dots on a partially-expanded balloon.
One dot being Earth (or more correctly, the Sun) and other
dots being stars. By blowing up the balloon, you see
that the distance between all stars does increase, without
ANY of them being in the center of the balloon.

Or has this simplistic theory been disproved while I
wasn't paying attention?

TVgeek

 

[Anonymous]

basic mistake on the red shift thing....what does he maen by stars?... he seems to mean galaxies .. imagine space being on the surface of an expanding balloon... so its all moveing away from each other without anything being the "center".... (only in 3 d)....

Granite? errr its stil radio active after millions of years in existance so what is he on about there?.... i think in a granit linned mine the temperature rises by about one degree every 20Meters down ..hence gold mines etc are very hot...

 

[Anonymous]

" the mathmatics used to triangulate the position of stars and to determine their distance involve making calculations based on the earths position at opposite sides of it's orbit. the farthest stars that we can accurately measure are about 100 light years away, beyond that it's all speculation.
the method we use to determine that stars are moving away from us is based on the lengthening of the light rays emanating from them into the infrared spectrum, called red shift. it's interesting to note that ALL stars, no matter where they are in relation to the earth, show red shift, indicating they are moving away from the earth. does this mean the earth really IS the center of the universe? why are no stars observable coming towards us?

I don't know about the radioactive particles, or the crystals in granite.

The redshift thing, which shows that all the stars appear to be moving away from us. It would appear just the same to an observer on a planet from any other star, as well. Almost All the stars are moving away from one another, that's because the universe is expanding.

It's a sort of three dimensional version of the surface of an inflating balloon. Print spots on the surface of an empty balloon and blow it up. See, they're all moving away from one another.

The triangulation measurement thing? Well, You take measurements of stars, midwinter when the Earth is furthest away from the sun and midsummer when it's closest, the parallax between the two measurements helps you work out their distances from earth. I suppose there's a margin of error, but that doesn't mean the stars are only 100 light years away. Plus I think these guys dubious references are seriously out of date since Hubble and radio astronomy, anyway.

Too much Creation Science in The 21st Century on TBN, if you ask me. They really mangle science to fit their theories.

Edit: sidecar_jon is quite right. It's not stars, it's galaxies. The stars are held in their courses and positions in the galaxies by the gravitational wells of the massive black holes at their centres.

 

[_schnor]

Seriously, don't argue with a creationst, as no matter your counter-argument they reply with "aha! God made it so - argue *that!*"

Really, give it up - I remember a flame I had with one a few years ago when I mentioned lead-argon dating, and he replied "well, yes - our lord created everything and can thus explain natures anomalies"

It's a losing battle TBH :-\

 

[oll_lewis]

don't fall into the trap of thinking all christians are mad mouth foaming loonies with their heads stuck up their own arses like most of the people on that site beak. most of us are actully normal nice people.

 

[Anome]

As others have pointed out above, not all stars are red-shifted. The Magellanic clouds are blue shifted, I believe.

They are correct on the use of parallax to determine the distance to other galaxies, etc. It is only useful up to a certain point. After that, they determine how far an object is by measuring it's red shift. This, combined with the speed at which the universe appears to be expanding, gives a pretty good estimate of the distance to the object. Except that they have discovered that the expansion may not be constant. This will undoubtedly result in some estimates of distance changing.

The best explanation of how the universe is expanding is the "Fruit Cake" model. The raisins etc in a fruit cake, as the cake rises, all move away from eachother. The problem is that this isn't as easy to demonstrate for TV, which is why people usually use the balloon.

 

[_schnor]

It smacks of a crude fermi paradox - I would prefer a more practible paradigm :nonplus:

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: The ravings of a creationist. Please explain.

...midwinter when the Earth is furthest away from the sun and midsummer when it's closest...

A small technical correction to the above; perihelion, the point in the orbit at which the earth is closest to the sun, occurs in the Northern hemisphere’s mid-winter, give or take a few days, aphelion, around its mid-summer. I know its counter intuitive, but the seasons are caused by the angle of the axis of rotation to the plane of the ecliptic.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of the post.

 

[Anonymous]

'perihelion, the point in the orbit at which the earth is closest to the sun, occurs in the Northern hemisphere’s mid-winter, give or take a few days, aphelion, around its mid-summer'

and this is why summers in the southern hemisphere are about 1% warmer than they would otherwise be.

in our galaxy half the stars are moving roughly away from us the other half are moving toward...
this is because we are rotating round the galaxy's centre.
(We are moving too, so they won't hit us, don't worry)
true,
the stars we can accurately measure with parallax are all within 100 light years (Hipparchos has made a good job of that)
but there are examples of most classes of stars within that 100 ly, so the distances of the other stars can be estimated by brightness...
parallax can be used with slightly less accuracy out to 400 ly (120 parsecs) so includes many of the rarer giant stars which can then be used as standard candles in other galaxies.
These estimations can be checked in clusters where all the stars are expected to be at roughly the same distance.

 

[Beakmoo]

don't fall into the trap of thinking all christians are mad mouth foaming loonies with their heads stuck up their own arses like most of the people on that site beak. most of us are actully normal nice people.

I know that Flash.
And don't worry Schnor, I'm making no attempt to argue with a creationist. In fact I think I need a rest before going back in, they've sapped my will to live. I just couldn't work out what he was on about with the rocks. Still don't know where he got that from.

 

[Anonymous]

...and this is why summers in the southern hemisphere are about 1% warmer than they would otherwise be...

IIRC Southern hemisphere summers would actually be warmer than the 1% noted, if the antarctic was sea instead of the large dual continent it is.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: The ravings of a creationist. Please explain.

It's a sort of three dimensional version of the surface of an inflating balloon. Print spots on the surface of an empty balloon and blow it up. See, they're all moving away from one another.

It can also apply to a classical "Big Bang." If you create an explosion made up of particles moving away from the centre with a range of velocities (though each one is fixed for that particular particle) then you get a very similar effect. If you change your reference frame so that you are now flying along with one of the particles, and do an appropriate coordinate transformation, you should find that (relative to you) all of the particles are flying away from you (radially) with velocities proportional to their distance. It's a nice little calculation, if you enjoy that kind of thing.

Of course, this doesn't take into account any graviational, or relativisitic effects (and the above model isn't really what is happening, the balloon model is far better) but it does show that the creationist reasoning is particularly weak.

 

[Anonymous]

scientists have recently found that radioactive particles in granite bedrock PROVE that the rock could not have formed by a gradual cooling process. these particles radiate their mass away in seconds after their creation, therefore they would not have left any trace in rocks forming over even a few hours, much less than millions of years.

This sounds like Gentry's "Polonium Halo" argument.

There's a nice discussion at Talk Origins...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#polonium

 

[Jerry_B]

Anyone remember the article in Fortean Times about 12 years ago which discussed the theory that the Earth cannot be as old as is claimed, as it's surface does not have enough meteoric dust? IIRC, this theory went along the lines that a given constant of dust should have settled over the earth in X amount of time, but there is less than expected. This doesn't support creationism in any way, but it does suggest that the vast epochs of time needed for evolution perhaps weren't actually available - the earth might not be as old as we think. So, if true, the way evolution works may be more dynamic and 'pro-active', and takes place at a more rapid pace than natural selection allows for...

 

[Anonymous]

Meteoric dust?

Now I'm lost.
Surely the dust could only build up and be measured if a planet's surface was static?
Where I live we these things called wind,rain, rivers and oceans.
Not to mention processes like erosion, sedimentation, plate tectonics and subduction.

As for radioactive particles radiating their mass away in seconds -I'm stumped because I can't even begin to understand what they're on about. Does he give any links Beak?

 

[intaglio]

I think the man is going on about short half-life radionucleides.

The argument will run something like this

An isotope of Element X has a half-life of one second

When the earth was formed there was supposed only to be a certain small proportion of this isotope say 10,000 tonnes

After 1 second there will only be 5,000 tonnes; after 2, 2,500: after 3 1,250 and so on

You find an traces of isotope X in a rock sample that is supposedly 3 million years old thats nearly 95 trillion seconds (94,608,000,000,000 or 94.608 x 10^12)

Ah-ha say the creationist surely all the atoms of isotope X will have decayed in that time. If they do say that they lack any understanding of physics, mathematics or chemistry.

Firstly isotopes are constantly being created by high energy cosmic rays as well as normal nuclear decay plus the odd atom will arrive from space
Secondly half life is an average. If you have an atom of isotope X you watch it the chances that it will decay in the first second is 50%. Right so the chance of it decaying in the second second is - still 50%
Finally the initial number of atoms you are dealing with is pretty large. Lets say that the atomic weight of isotope X is 250 then in every 250 grams of the stuff there are 6.022 x 10^23 atoms and in 10,000 tonnes there will be 24.088 X 10^30 atoms.

Now I won't lie that last number although big pales into insignificance before the number of half life cycles those atoms have to go through, lets just say it involves 95 trillion zeros. however because you are dealing in probability there will always be a few atoms of isotope X to find.

And my brain hurts

 

[Anonymous]

Creationist's And Their Risible Age Of The Earth Claims

My grandfather was a very committed Christian. In his younger days he was also a miner. Travelling down, almost every day, in to the earth through hundreds, upon hundreds, of layers of strata and regularily finding the ancient fossils of colossal tree ferns and event the imprint of the occasional insect.

He had no problem with evolution, as regards the age of the Earth. In order to accept the Creationist's viewpoint, then you also have accept a version of God, as a rather malign practical joker, who has falsified rock strata and even fossil evidence to trap the unwary.

Going by the rest of the Creationist beliefs, this is actually consistent with their rather vindictive and judgmental Lord who condemns the vast majority of Earth's population to eternal damnation and torture, just because they didn't follow His Book of instructions, absolutely exactly.

 

[Jerry_B]

Re: Creationist's And Their Risible Age Of The Earth Claims

He had no problem with evolution, as regards the age of the Earth. In order to accept the Creationist's viewpoint, then you also have accept a version of God, as a rather malign practical joker, who has falsified rock strata and even fossil evidence to trap the unwary.

Reminds me of what the late Bill Hicks had to say on the subject...

 

[mejane]

Well said, Androman

True Christians try to live according to the principles laid down in the Bible and can accept that it is often poetic rather than literal. If God exists (I'm still sitting firmly on the fence on that issue) then I believe that He gave humans an insatiable desire to learn and discover more about the universe for a reason, albeit a typically mysterious one.

In my opinion, faith means nothing if you do not have the strengh of character to question it. Blind faith is just that (no, not a '60s rock band): blind to God's intentions, whatever they may be.

I have a fond daydream where God created the Earth because he liked frogs, and is a bit miffed that all these upright apes are strutting around the place as if they owned it Maybe I'm just weird.

Anyhoo, back to the sciency bit...

Jane.

 

[Anonymous]

As for radioactive particles radiating their mass away in seconds -I'm stumped because I can't even begin to understand what they're on about. Does he give any links Beak?

I don't think that it is anything to do with the more traditional issue of radioactive decay, but is related to the issue of radiation induced colour haloes (RICHs) which have been used by a creationist called Gentry to claim that certain rocks were created instantaneously ~6000 years ago.

For more info go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#polonium
where I pinched the following quotes.

Polonium halos are small spherical "shells" of radiation damage that surround radioactive inclusions within certain minerals in rocks, which Gentry has described in his book "Creation's Tiny Mystery." [1] The halos are formed by alpha particles released during the decay of an isotope. As an alpha particle nears the end of its path and slows, it causes disruption of the crystal structure leaving a small damage track. Over time, repeated decays from the parent isotope will leave a spherical halo of discoloration. The distance that an alpha particle travels depends upon the energy of the decay and that, in turn, is a function of the particular nuclide that decays. Theoretically, then, the radii of a series of halos that surround a radioactive inclusion permit identification of the specific decaying nuclides.

Gentry has claimed that certain of these halos indicate that the granite "basement rocks" of the earth are "the primordial Genesis rocks" and were created instantaneously about six thousand years ago. Essentially, Gentry has found that in certain samples of Precambrian biotite (a mica) the inner ring halos for uranium and other nuclides in the decay chain which should be producing Polonium 210, Po214 and Po218 are missing; only the polonium rings for these three isotopes are present. In addition, Gentry observed little or no uranium in the radioactive inclusion. His conclusion is that the polonium must have been primordial and, because of the short half-lives of the polonium isotopes (138.4 days , 0.000164 sec. and 3.04 minutes, respectively), the granite, therefore, must have been created in the solid state in "only a brief period between 'nucleosynthesis' and crystallization of the host rock."
.
.
.
"Were tiny polonium halos God's fingerprints in Earth's primordial rocks? Could it be that the Precambrian granites were the Genesis rocks of our planet?"
.
.
.
Gentry's case rests heavily on a "God-of-the-gaps" approach to the halos; that is, it requires that there be no acceptable naturalistic explanation for the halos. Once such an explanation is found, Gentry's case crumbles. One paper that proposes such a naturalistic explanation is by N. K. Chaudhuri and R. H. Iyer [3].

 

[Beakmoo]

Does he give any links Beak?

Sadly no, but I think Fortis may have hit the nail on it's head with the Gentry stuff. Thanks for that.

 

[Anonymous]

'twas nothing. I've spent many a happy hour patiently discussing the creation (or lack of it) with Jehovah's Witnesses. My proudest moment came when they started fidgeting, looking at their watches, and said that they had to go.

 

[intaglio]

Looks like the right reference, Fortis. It'll be nice to see if the naturalistic explanation can be found on another MB. Which means me finding them again. Oh, sod it....

BTW You must be a Gentle(wo)man of Leisure. It takes ages for the JWs to give up. Normally I rely on inviting them in and bowing to the stuffed goats head round which I draw a pentacle.

 

[Anonymous]

A few years back, we had the JWs call round, and after much debating (they always love to bring up thermodynamics and entropy, but as my background is theoretical physics, specialising in statistical physics, ...) they asked if they could come back for a home visit. I couldn't help myself and said yes. Thus began the first of many visits by a pair of JWs.

After about 5 or six weekly sessions (each lasting a couple of hours) they eventually gave up. I was always very up-front about my scepticism, so I certainly wasn't stringing them along. From what I've read about them, I suspect that giving up on me, while I was still happy for them to come back, is probably "not a good thing."

Still, we moved house, and a month or so ago, who should arrive on my doorstep but a pair of JW's. They left me some literature and promised to come back...

 

[Beakmoo]

You never know Fortis, you might end up converting them. That would be a good deed, enabling them to actually enjoy their lives. Mind you I suspect some people are mortally afraid of enjoying their lives.

 

[Hospitaller]

I know a guy who had the Mormons round. They were disconcerted when, having listened to their preamble, he produced his stock of Mormon literature and asked them:
"So what's all this about Jesus living with the wife & kids on a planet circling Kolob?" They quickly made their excuses and left!

 

[Anonymous]

But the ancient rocks are full of these halo type effects, surrounding all sorts of radioactive decay sites... I saw some myself, all those decades ago when I was studying geology...

Surely the uranium haloes can't have been missed by God when he created all the others?
God would have made all the other haloes that date rocks back to the Precambrian-
or did he miss these particular ones out to provide Creationists with a proof of his existence?
I thought faith was supposed to be enough.

 

[Breakfastologist]

The other problem that creationists and other biblical literalists have is that they are being very literal over a document that has mostly been translated from at least greek and/or latin and previously much of it translated into greek from hebrew and that however good a translator is the exact sense of a word doesn't allways follow through. I have heard it said that the word "day" as used in Genesis could be more correctly translated to mean "time period".

And they're always keen to follow that but not sacrifice goats the whole time like they're supposed to if they're being literal about the rest of the old testament...