How old is the Earth?

[KerrMetric]

Just to be clear:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_vardiman/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_snelling/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/

Oh yes, these seem like real dummies.
Also I notice you don't even mention the other authors. RATE was a significant project with a lot of participants. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=430

For example: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_baumgardner

I used the 3 authors listed on the front. Not a single one has a published geophysics paper. End of story as far as them being geophysicists.

I am familiar with Baumgardner as well. His background is dodgy to say the least. Look at his work for Los Alamos - he's not exactly signing his name to Young Earth stuff is he? He's a computer modeller - he has zero background in radiodating. Funny how he keeps his YEC quackery outside of real journal papers isn't it?

 

[laptoppop]

Can you please stop the name calling? Its getting very old, and it definitely adds nothing to the discussion except antagonism.

I'll let the other readers decide for themselves if these are intelligent, educated people with interesting data and analysis. I see no reason to try to convince you.

 

[heavensangelwv]

Yes, I had a college geology class. It is also a bit of a hobby of mine, but I do not claim to be an expert. Again, however -- you are not addressing the issues or facts. Using your logic I can dismiss any pesky data that I don't agree with. Cool! That's much easier than dealing with the issues.

I have written many papers arguing many conflicting ideas. From my personal experience, I do have the ability to say that you can find a study proving your point for just about anything you want. For me to consider your "evidence" as fact, I would want more than one study to consider. One study is not how science works; you need many studies completed by multple people that have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[laptoppop]

Let's see -- written by a team of PhDs (at least 6, I'm not sure of the exact size), technically reviewed by 15 more PhDs, both creationists and non-creationists -- but you dismiss it out of hand. OK, whatever. I sure wish I could use your technique around here!

 

[KerrMetric]

Can you please stop the name calling? Its getting very old, and it definitely adds nothing to the discussion except antagonism.

How is it name calling to call nongeophysicists nongeophysicists. If anything it's honesty. The 3 authors on the front of the "paper" are not geophysicists.

the only reason you are continuing this argument is that the creationist community are desperate as hell to seem scientifically credible and qualified because almost the entire history of creationism is littered almost to 100% total of either completely unqualified people or people with a distantly related qualification.

I repeat - when people with no geophysics papers write a 600 page document and do NOT submit for review by the professionals then they are pulling a con job.

The important thing for them is not the content of the paper and it's scientific validity - it's just that they cobbled it together. That's it! The fact it exists is what is important so they can con the donation givers they are actually doing something. This is why no matter how much you and others cry about it - it wont be considered science until it dares to enter the arena of scientific critique. The only reason these guys present posters (non reviewed) at conferences is so they can say they were at a real scientific conference. If they had the guts to do so (which they do not) they would actually present the material as a paper at the conferences and submit it to a respected journal.

I bet they don't.

 

[heavensangelwv]

Just because someone with a PhD reviewed it does not mean it was published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[heavensangelwv]

I repeat - when people with no geophysics papers write a 600 page document and do NOT submit for review by the professionals then they are pulling a con job.

I completely agree

 

[KerrMetric]

Let's see -- written by a team of PhDs (at least 6, I'm not sure of the exact size), technically reviewed by 15 more PhDs, both creationists and non-creationists -- but you dismiss it out of hand. OK, whatever. I sure wish I could use your technique around here!

It was NOT technically reviewed in any sense of the science communities definition. It is a FARCE to imply it was.

In fact - they deliberately avoided actual peer review.

The 3 authors have NOT a single paper in geophysics EVER.

Does this not resonate?

 

[heavensangelwv]

Here is something to consider... If you have a medical condition and you do not know what it is, are you going to go to a doctor or are you going to go to a let's say ... a construction worker? You are going to go to the doctor because the doctor has experience and training in the field that you need help in. Why doesn't the same apply here? Why would you accept "fact" about geophysics from someone who has not been trained in geophysics?

 

[KerrMetric]

Why would you accept "fact" about geophysics from someone who has not been trained in geophysics?

Because they like the sound of the message - nothing more than that, it's what they want to hear.

 

[laptoppop]

Here is something to consider... If you have a medical condition and you do not know what it is, are you going to go to a doctor or are you going to go to a let's say ... a construction worker? You are going to go to the doctor because the doctor has experience and training in the field that you need help in. Why doesn't the same apply here? Why would you accept "fact" about geophysics from someone who has not been trained in geophysics?

Read the qualifications of the team members - they had people on their team with their doctorate in Geophysics. I haven't looked up all of the doctorates of the reviewers.

 

[heavensangelwv]

Because they like the sound of the message - nothing more than that, it's what they want to hear.

Sadly that is why many people believe the way they do about both things of a Biblical nature and otherwise. They do not take the time to actually try to understand. It does not hinder my faith in the least to believe that it took 4.5 billion years in man's time for the creation of the Earth to occur. Does that make God any less powerful?

 

[laptoppop]

No, of course it doesn't make God less powerful. Even apart from the physical evidence -- what do you do with the Scriptures?

 

[KerrMetric]

Read the qualifications of the team members - they had people on their team with their doctorate in Geophysics. I haven't looked up all of the doctorates of the reviewers.

Since it was not peer reviewed we have NO idea what if any review took place. Did each reviewer get the entire paper (I doubt it at 600 pages) or did they get carefully chosen snippets based on their allegiance to the creationist cause.

Real peer review deliberately choose the referees based on their direct experience in the given area. Was that done here - seemingly not.

Was there a single expert in radiodating on their list? If they had submitted this to a real journal that's who would have done the reviewing. For all I know with this paper the non-Creationists may have been given a few tables of numbers to verify the source claims and whether they thought the font was pretty or not.

To pretend this a piece of scientific work in the accepted sense is a joke.

 

[heavensangelwv]

Indeed... whenever I am assigned articles to critique, I always have to choose articles that have been published in a peer reviewed journal. This is a requirement because not just anyone can throw something together and automatically get it published. There has to be some element of evidential "truth" behind what they are saying.

 

[jesuspickedmeup]

I have a question. In your opinion, how old is the earth and on what do you base your view?

IMO there are only two answers that are supportable. The Biblical if one takes Genesis as literal. Or one based on current scientific thought.

If one takes Genesis as literal one comes up with a 6000 year old earth.

If one takes current scientific thought one comes up with a 4.5 billion year old earth.


Now this is what puzzles me. Some creationists say the earth is 10,000 to 12,000 years old. What’s with that? There is nothing in the Bible that supports such a notion. IMO this date is an attempt to reconcile the date of Adam’s creation with verifiable human history (e.g. Jericho being at least 10,000 years old) or the verified (by tree rings) age of Bristle Cone pines; also at 10,000 years.

As far as I am concerned, a POV or theory not based on scripture of science is mere speculation.

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”

If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)​

If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.​

If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.​

If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.​

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”​

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).​

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)​

 

[KerrMetric]

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”

If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)​

If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.​

If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.​

If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.​

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”​

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).​

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)​

The problem is the timeline goes back a lot more than that even with humans involved directly in it.

 

[heavensangelwv]

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

I love you too much to debate this with you ... maybe when I'm not about to fall out of my chair! Lol

 

[SNPete]

No, of course it doesn't make God less powerful. Even apart from the physical evidence -- what do you do with the Scriptures?

If yer talkin' Genesis 1&2, see my post.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36653409&postcount=9

Scripture is the Word of God. Be it literal, symbolic or poetic.

 

[SNPete]

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”

If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)​

If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.​

If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.​

If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.​

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”​

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).​

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)​

Yes, but what about them 10,000 year old Bristle Cone pines and the city of Jericho (c.8000 BC). Oh and Egypt. 4500 BC writings does toss off the 4004 BC date of Bishop Usher (sp?)