Atheistic, Theistic, YEC or OEC -- That is the Question?

I've think you've just exceeded warp 10, Captain Kirk.Sorry, Philip, makes no sense to me either. Perhaps you need to provide more background info.--Percy

You've got a few misconceptions here. First, atomic time is not measured radiometrically. Radiometric isotopes are those which to some degree are unstable and decay at a fixed, but at the atomic level probabilistic, rate to another isotope. Because of the probabilistic nature of decay at the atomic level, and because the decay rates themselves are measured empirically and hence are not very accurate, we do not use decay rates to measure time. Atomic time is measured by the vibrations of atoms. For instance, a second is now defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium 133 atom. I know there are more accurate atomic clocks under development, but I can't tell you the details.Your second misconception concerns synchronicity. Clocks in different reference frames cannot be synchronized - Einstein's theory of relativity tells us this. If you have observers in two different reference frames that are moving relative to one another and they both make a time measurement of the same event, say of the time it takes a dropped ball to reach the ground, they will arrive at different answers. There is no way you can say that one observer was right and the other wrong. They are both right for their own frame of reference.Your third misconception involves believing that there are different types of time. While you can have different reference frames for the measurement of time, there are not different types of time. There is not an atomic time and a planetary time, there is only time. What you're actually talking about is the different ways to measure time. You can measure time by dividing a planet's rotational period into equal subunits, say hours, minutes and seconds, and this will be pretty accurate. The earth's rotational period is very stable. However, it is not *perfectly* stable, for some purposes using the earth's rotational period as the basis for the second is insufficiently accurate, and so eventually atomic clocks were developed. We now define the second in atomic terms instead of planetary terms, and every few years you'll hear that scientists are adjusting clocks by a second because variations in the earths rotational period have caused a divergence from atomic time.But when the universe first formed there were no planets. In fact, there weren't even any cesium 133 atoms, but the measure of time we've defined based upon the cesium 133 atom is still a yardstick that we can project upon the past history of the universe to measure the time of events. You've only lost yourself. E=mc² is Einstein's mass/energy equivalence equation and is not directly related to relativity, which is what you're really talking about. The debate developed out of the response of evangelical Christianity to the perceived threat of evolution to their highly questionable interpretations of Genesis expressed by making equally questionable scientific claims, and is not due to conflicting data. There is no scientific evidence supporting a young earth.--Percy

There's nothing dogmatic or speculative about what I wrote. Unlike you, I am not making things up as I go along. You can go to any library and verify everything I told you.Further, a link to the References and Notes of the online edition of Walt Brown's book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood could hardly be considered "20 or so astronomers" rebutting what I wrote. Like I said, go to any library, what I told you is all there.But you've focused on a side issue and are ignoring the primary points in my post, which were five:

1. Atomic time is not measured radiometrically.
   ​
2. Clocks in different reference frames cannot be synchronized.
   ​
3. There are not different types of time, but only different ways of measuring time.
   ​
4. You confused Einstein's mass/energy equivalence equation, E=mc², with relativity. They are not directly related.
   ​
5. There is no evidence for a young earth.

--Percy

Let's put this back in context. In Message 7 you said: To which I replied in Message 8: Since these were contextual offside comments not directly pertinent to the main topic, which is your speculations about the nature of time, details weren't appropriate and I don't see anything dogmatic about either of our statements. If you wish to discuss the evidence for a young earth simply open a thread.But I think you're losing sight of your original topic. You began with speculations about a "2 clock system", and now you're off discussing radiometric dating and the origin of the heavy elements. Could you try to tie in for us how this all relates to your original post?--Percy