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

With respect to both camps (Evos and Creos) and their postulates, I ask a relativistic question as I’m now re-thinking my oversimplified creationist label/identity. Many of you Evos have doubtlessly re-defined your limits of evolution as well, especially pre-Big-Bang/Big crunch.1) I’ve somewhat concluded much of the cosmic data supports YEC in DIURNAL CLOCK terms, that is ‘evening-morning’-solar-like clocks. (e.g. some comet data, magnetic field data, lunar data, sedimentary data, etc.)2) But that OEC does seem to apply to ATOMIC CLOCKS, starry light years, and such. That is, I believe radiometric dating is probably fairly valid in terms of atomic time, as it is used (albeit in atomic time only).3) I’ve partially reconciled uncalibrated YEC-clocks vs. OEC-clocks (to my own conscience) using relativistic theories and supernatural (metaphysical) postulates posted elsewhere on this forum (i.e., Setterfield’s decreasing c, special relativity, God’s having created the ‘mature’-chicken-with-the-egg, etc).4) I strongly believe in the stellar, geological, and biological ToEs as they apply to:
-- the last few millennia of diurnal time and
-- billions of years of atomic time.To simplify, I strongly believe our 2 clock systems (#1 and #2 above) are grossly uncalibrated, one group against the other, and are misused by scientists and philosophers alike.In many ways am I a Theistic-Evo, a YEC, and also an OEC? (Pardon my drifting in my old age)So what is appropriately my identity and what is yours? Henceforth, I don’t feel I can honestly call myself just an Evo, just a YEC, or just an OEC, etc.(Perhaps the question boils down to theistic vs. atheistic ... just a thought)

PhilYour confusion is reflected in your post. I can't make head or tail of it.

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

I can't help but have the feeling that it's time for a "Great Debate" topic, between Philip and Brad.Moose

Nope, I'm lost too.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Believe it or not, I think I got that. My nutshell synopsis is that God made a young Earth that looks old, but maybe after I get some sleep I'll be confused as well. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

WI, Percy, John, and Others:To re-phrase: Atomic (radiometric) time vs. diurnal (planatary) time. Do you really believe they were synchronized (say) 13 Billion years at the moment(s) after the Creation/Bang?Or, is there anyone out there that remembers E=mcc was probably having its effect on time at the Beginning moments of the Big-Bang/Creation? (I probably lost you again. You do the math).Surely, WI, there will always be data that supports a very young earth and data that supports a very old earth. Else we would not be having a creation vs. evolution debate going on here.Respectfully, I've learned a lot on this forum. Thus, I may now (indeed) accept the ToE (almost like you), albeit with critical dilemmas concerning its time paradigms only. See, we're connecting you and I?Yes? No? Spam? Please don't handwave me into Brad-like oblivion. Give a fella a (scientifically hypothetical) hand in this.[This message has been edited by Philip, 03-01-2003]

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

Percy, you've become overly-dogmatic in you speculations concerning time. See how about 20 or so astronomers rebut your dogmatic speculations, especially regarding your misconception of Cesium clocks and time as it relates to E=mcc, i.e., in #11.Do you really want me or anyone else to dogmatically believe that great supernovas fused Cesium and other higher elements/isotopes ...and/or that they were captured ad-hoc by a sun's gravitation producing complex earth-like planets? Such speculation must always remain as hypothetical (at best), don't you reckon? Quit deluding yourself and others by suggesting it as part of a theory/ToE, or worse yet, as fact.Surely your ToE and my ToE is unworthy of dogmatic speculations.[This message has been edited by Philip, 03-03-2003]

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

Philip, there are some very obvious problems with some points on that site you linked to.Take this point (which you implied refered to caesium clocks and E=mc2, though I don't see the connection) for example

quote:

---

11 . Some who believe in an old universe have a different explanation. Those isotopes are extinct because so much time has passed. However, this explanation raises a counterbalancing question: How did those isotopes, and 97% of all elements, form? The standard answer is that these elements appeared during supernova explosions. This is actually speculation, because essentially no supporting evidence has been found. Besides, all supernova remnants we see in our galaxy appear to be less than 10,000 years old. This is based on the well-established decay pattern of a supernova’s light intensity in the radio-wave frequency range.

---

The problem here is two fold;
1) that the overwhelming majority of supernovae occured early in the life of the galaxy when it was dominated by massive stars (we know that from studies of very distant galaxies), and so the contribution of modern supernovae to the abundances of heavy elements is minor.
2) by their very nature supernovae remnants disperse with time, and so the absence of really old remnants is hardly surprising. And the 10000 year age is wrong too - "Tycho's Star" in Cassiopeia exploded at least 20000 years ago, and SN1987A in the LMC about 169000 years ago.Alan

General relativity and accelerated decay are the keys and you do not need to invoke differEnt types of time! When time rates change locally they change for everything in that frame! When decay rates change there is no effect on time! Please tell me if you need me to explain this further.This scheme is not as ad hoc as it seems. Spatially differnt rates of time occur automatically in a bounded space-time continuum during expansion and accelerated decay would certainly occur if fundamental constants drifted as has been observed for at least one combination. In addition helium retention in granites strongly point to accelerated decay unless the diffusion physics is found to be flawed.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 03-04-2003]

And with "accelerated decay" comes extra radiation flux and additional heat...............
address these if you want to fit 4.5 billion years' decay into a few thousand years' time, please.

Alan,Radiometric dating seems (to me) to be greatly flawed due to the when of which higher elements were:
(1) created ...and/or
(2) intermittantly evolved ...and/or
(3) incrementally evolved.
(4)...Not to mention captured enmass by our solar system(Hope I didn't lose you here)It seems you agree with me in that supernova remnents are unlikely (scanty) sources of our higher elements, like Cesium.Pray tell us, then, when/where do you yourself speculate higher elements ever came into existence here (e.g., to be captured or produced by our solar system (on earth))?Thanks in advance,Philip[This message has been edited by Philip, 03-14-2003]

You dogmatically state, again: "There is no evidence for a young earth"Sorry Percy, but dogmatic speculation and over-generaliztion such as this is merely sophisticated lying, else biased and ignorant denial.(I'm full of it, too. I admit it)Folks, I'd appreciate if we'd all try keeping our dogmatic cosmic speculations down to the hypothetical level of reality. This is an insult to our character and science. Forgive my absolutisms, too.