Overwhelming Evidence for an Old Earth

[Jazer]

Which it has been, so your point would be...?

My point is that Radiometric dating does not tell us how old the earth is. Right now the age of the earth is established using the information we have from Hubble. This is based on the belief that the universe is expanding at a consistant rate.

 

[Jazer]

Molten rock hardens into igneous rock.The 'origional' earth's composition was not granitic.

The origional composition was molten that hardened into igneous rock and granite is a igneous rock it is NOT a sedimentary rock.

 

[Mikecpking]

My point is that Radiometric dating does not tell us how old the earth is. Right now the age of the earth is established using the information we have from Hubble. This is based on the belief that the universe is expanding at a consistant rate.

The age of the earth was determined a long time before Hubble was even launched and the fact that the universe is expanding was observed by Hubble (the astronomer) in 1923 and has been confirmed by numerous observations ever since and has been measured. Not only that, it has been observed that the universe's expansion has been accelerating and this was discovered in 1998. I don't get what how you come to the conclusion that Hubble came to determine the age of the earth.

 

[Orogeny]

My point is that Radiometric dating does not tell us how old the earth is.

It absolutely does, and it does so by Pb/Pb dating of chondrites, which are remnants of the accretion of the inner planets.

 

[Orogeny]

The origional composition was molten that hardened into igneous rock and granite is a igneous rock it is NOT a sedimentary rock.

So then you agree with me that there would have been no sedimentary rocks and that the original composition of the Earth was not granitic. Fantabulous!

 

[Geode]

Don't give me that nonsense. I gave you the facts and you just revealed how much respect you have for facts. So you believe in that Darwinian hogwash concerning occurrences you have never observed, but you don't believe in those occurrences (i.e. Mt. St. Helens) that have been both observed and timed by empirical investigation.

You keep your childish ridicule to yourself because it means nothing to me.

Well here are far more facts for you to chew on:

"Drama in the Rocks"

I hope you will have the courage to view the entire program. I've never seen anything that blows away evolutionary 'geology' like these creationist geologists did.

I have viewed all of "Drama in the Rocks" and there is a good reason that only YECs find this distorted and dishonest piece to have validity. It is formed over a set of valid experiments in sedimentology that were not particularly "earth-shattering" in what they revealed and such sedimentation had already been studied in the past with the produced bedforms already largely understood.

The problem with what Berthault does is that he takes valid results from a set of experiments and makes baseless conclusions by distorting definitions. The Principle of Superposition is not applied correctly and is no way invalidated by the results. It is not correct to further extend this distortion to an attack on the Principle of Faunal Succession (not identified), which seems to be the real goal of the video.

To take experiments involving on type of prograding sediments in one flow regime and then basically claim that all sedimentary rocks were deposited this way (sideways) is ridiculous.

This video defames the emory and work of a great pioneer in the study of stratigraphy, Nicolas Steno, by mistating what he set forth. It also defames William Smith and his valid Principle of Faunal Succession.

There is quite a bit of other poor geology in this production, the part about deposition with tsunamis is farcical.

 

[juvenissun]

I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth. For example look at the Grand Canyon. Young Earth people say it was carved out in recent history, in the last 13,000 years. Ok, I can accept that, but look at what was carved out. The Grand Canyon is made in layers that obviously took a very long time to be formed. In fact often layers had to be broken down from a solid rock to a very fine partical, so it can be layed down as a layer. Geological evidence shows this earth has been around for a long time. The young earth theory has been shown not to be true for over 100 years now. Often it was Christians trying to show a young earth that discovered that the earth is actually very ancient.

Yes, the earth seems to be old. But the earth is young.
So, how could they both be right?
You would probably be too simple if you say they could not. There ARE other variables. Ironically, time is most likely one of them.

 

[Geode]

Yes, the earth seems to be old. But the earth is young.
So, how could they both be right?
You would probably be too simple if you say they could not. There ARE other variables. Ironically, time is most likely one of them.

Is this the argument that God created the earth a few thousand years ago using "old" materials or materials that appear old?

 

[juvenissun]

Is this the argument that God created the earth a few thousand years ago using "old" materials or materials that appear old?

Not so.

One important clue is the Garden of Eden. It still exists today. You tell me how is it possible.

 

[Geode]

Not so.

One important clue is the Garden of Eden. It still exists today. You tell me how is it possible.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what point you are attempting to make.

 

[Orogeny]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what point you are attempting to make.

Nor will you. Juve is our resident pseudogeologist. He presents very basic geologic knowledge and claims to be a university faculty geologist, yet is unwilling to substantiate the claim and when pressed, fails to display an integrated understanding of the geosciences.

He's fun to poke holes in, but your time will ultimately be wasted.

 

[Geode]

Nor will you. Juve is our resident pseudogeologist. He presents very basic geologic knowledge and claims to be a university faculty geologist, yet is unwilling to substantiate the claim and when pressed, fails to display an integrated understanding of the geosciences.

He's fun to poke holes in, but your time will ultimately be wasted.

A geologist on the faculty of a university? I would never have guessed that from the posts I have seen. I have personally encountered dozens of professors of geology.

 

[juvenissun]

A geologist on the faculty of a university? I would never have guessed that from the posts I have seen. I have personally encountered dozens of professors of geology.

That is pretty true. If you see me face to face, I am just another normal one.

Too bad.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what point you are attempting to make.

I said that what I said is a critical clue to the young earth.

 

[Geode]

I said that what I said is a critical clue to the young earth.

Once again, you are being far too cryptic to make any sense to me.

 

[Geode]

That is pretty true. If you see me face to face, I am just another normal one.

Too bad.

You are admitting that your posts reveal little knowledge of geology?

 

[juvenissun]

You are admitting that your posts reveal little knowledge of geology?

It depends on how much do you understand. The more you know, the more I know.

 

[juvenissun]

Once again, you are being far too cryptic to make any sense to me.

I am sorry. It might be so. It would have to be broken down to several steps.

Do you accept the idea that the Garden of Eden still exist today?

If your don't. Then that is it. No more argument.

 

[juvenissun]

You are admitting that your posts reveal little knowledge of geology?

I just read your personal info. Sorry to be sarcastic. In fact, I seems like to talk to you. I never work in industry, so I guess I would have a lot to learn from you. What do you do in petroleum industry?

 

[Geode]

I am sorry. It might be so. It would have to be broken down to several steps.

Do you accept the idea that the Garden of Eden still exist today?

If your don't. Then that is it. No more argument.

I'm not in the mood for games. If you have a valid point to make about the age of the earth make it, otherwise you are just wasting people's time.