tgamble

Enjoy! I found it entertaining.

"My view of the earth is unique, even among the other young earth creationists. Most of them don't believe that the bible is literal enough to calculate an age, with confidence (6,415 (-91 / +155) years old). I think I am the only one in the whole country who has done this calculation:

<a href="http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm" target="_blank">http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm</a>
so in that respect, I guess I am a crack-pot.

I absolutely agree with you; there is no direct experiment that shows that the earth is young (or old for that matter) that covers strictly the definition that I think we both use for "real science". I think all of these observations are indirect; wouldn't you agree?

I think that is my point is that whatever one believes, you try to fit the data into that belief. I am simply trying to show that the Bible is plausible, and what you believe is your choice. Personally, I believe that the Bible is without error.

Radiometric Dating is accurate, but after the flood, there was no Carbon 14 in the Atmosphere, so any fossil dug up from the flood will date very old. This is because of a powerful magnetic field around the earth which stopped penetration of any cosmic rays.
<a href="http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/creation.htm#Job_37" target="_blank">http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/creation.htm#Job_37</a>
The calculation for the age of the earth only applies to our moon and our sun. The stars aged millions and billions of years during a 5 month period of the flood of Noah. This is the main "difference" (if you will) between me and any other creationist that I think you will find. The Windows of Heaven are dimensional windows, and they are the 5th fundamental force (electro-magnetic, molecular, atomic, gravity, and the 5th force). The further away stars are from us currently, the more they aged.

Essentially, it makes us the traveler without traveling. It is a relativistic time shift, inside-out. If you move through space fast, your time slows down, but if the fabric of space is moving with you in it, your time can go enormously fast compared to a stationary block of space.
<a href="http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/creation.htm#Genesis_7" target="_blank">http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/creation.htm#Genesis_7</a>

I believe the calculation done in April 1995 is a slam-dunk that our sun is new. We have a pretty good grasp of the fusion reaction of Hydrogen to generate heat. In the reaction, mass is converted to energy, Helium is formed, and a particular type of neutrino is released, a muon neutrino. As reported in the April 1995 edition of Physics Today, only 60% of the expected neutrinos are being detected here on Earth. That is, if the Sun were 4.6 billion years old, and the heavier element reactions were also occurring, increasing the total quantity of reactions (as they do when a Sun ages), then we are missing 40% of the expected neutrinos! Curiously, as the Physics Today article mentions, the amount of neutrinos being collected is precisely the amount we would get if only the primary reaction were occurring (that is, just the Hydrogen reaction). The only time when just the Hydrogen reaction exclusively occurs is when a Sun is new.

<a href="http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/physics.jpg" target="_blank">http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/physics.jpg</a>

I am sorry if I am going on too much. Thanks for your time & talk to you later; Brian."

Coragyps

He's certainly right up to date, huh?

Duvenoy

Gracious!

I seem to recall reading, not so long ago, that the missing nutrinos had been accounted for.

Fun read, though.

doov

Lord Asriel

The stars aged millions and billions of years during a 5 month period

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Lord Asriel ]</p>

tgamble

The missing dust on the moon has been accounted for as well.

Late_Cretaceous

Dude, you should put a warning with that one : "Make sure you are not drinking coffee when reading this"

I just about sprayed my keyboard

tgamble

ok, I'm no expert but I think I learned SOMETHING from being here. So I'll give the errors I think exists and people can add/correct where applicable.

First, carbon 14 dating is not used to date fossils.

Second, it's unlikely that a carbon 14 would be absent after a flood. Why would it?

Third, the magnetic field wouldn't keep out such cosmic rays.

My bullshit detector is going off the scale but I couldn't say why exactly.

As for neutrinos, I checked talkorigins ans sure enough,

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html</a>

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

There is no 5th fundamental force. Just the four, and they're trying to simplify it down to 1--last I heard, they unified the weak, strong, and EM forces, with gravity the odd man out.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Well, considering that the date of creation was calcualted a few hundred years ago, I suppose no one in this country would have bothered to deal with it.
Okay.
Not okay. Read the previous sentence.
[/quote]
Radiometric Dating is accurate, but after the flood, there was no Carbon 14 in the Atmosphere, so any fossil dug up from the flood will date very old.
[/quote]
Ummmm.....why wasn't there any C-14 in the atmosphere? It sure didn't rain itself out.
Similie, anyone? Hard as a mirror cast of bronze. That doesn't mean ANYTHING of the color of the sky.

Second, the reason that the sky is blue has to do with the scattering of light waves in atmosphere. That magnetic field would have to be PRETTY hefty to make any form of impact.
WHAT?
Managed to get 2 of those wrong. EM, Gravity, Strong (responsible for binding atoms together at close distances), weak (radioactive decay). And all but gravity have been unified.
What? How? Why?
So how does distance really affect anyhting out of this block of space? Hint--it doesn't. And how does it explain that there are stars that are older that are closer to us than younger stars?
But we found those missing neutrinos. Ooooooops.
You opened your mouth--that alone merits apology.

Atheist121

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the field around Earth prevent cosmic rays from bombarding us?