Part 2 - The Creator has Invalidated Knowing Earth's Age Through Scientific Enquiry

[TLK Valentine]

It appears to be that old to whomever accepts the age dating assumptions used in making the 4.5 billion year earth age claim.

And what, specifically, might those age dating assumptions be?

I do not agree with those assumptions as grounds for any conclusion about age.

Yeah, I kind of figured that. What assumptions are those again?

The truth is that no one knows when and why radioactive elements on earth were formed.

We know how they behave.

My understanding is that radioactivity on earth is a result of geologic crushing events the occurred in the flood of Noah.

Your "understanding," or your assumption?

 

[TLK Valentine]

??

You didn't know that? It's a classic; you really should read it when you get the chance.

 

[Joseppi]

And what, specifically, might those age dating assumptions be?

The assumption of when radioactivity began.
The assumption that carbon dating can be extrapolated into the non historical past. (that is, beyond reference to historically provable events of the past for calibration reference)
The assumption that water born sediments can be sorted out over great lengths of time.
The assumption that global scale sediments can be explained by small local river flooding.
Etc...

 

[Joseppi]

We know how they behave.

Once radioactivity begins.

Your "understanding," or your assumption?

I make no assumption. I accept the testimony of the scriptures of the Holy Bible because it makes all history understandable and is not refutable except in the minds of them that do accept assumptions as scientific basis for conclusions.

 

[Joseppi]

You didn't know that? It's a classic; you really should read it when you get the chance.

I saw no relevance to what I am discussing.
As you said, you were "just sayin".
I didn't want you to think I ignored your comment but I found it to be off topic.
I have read the fiction as prescribed by the teacher back in the day, so to speak. But it left no impact upon me.
In the future please note that I will not respond to off topic comments having no direct relevance to the discussion at hand. Thanks.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'am referring to Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Yes but the issue becomes confused very fast when man was told not to eat from the tree of good and evil. Each chapter in the story takes us to the next level of understanding.

Genesis 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:6 ""For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Nathaniel Hawthorne stated that The Scarlet Letter was historical. Just sayin.

According to Wiki It is a Romance is an 1850 fictional novel in a historical setting. Does that really confuse you that fiction is set in a historical setting? The difference is the Bible is not fiction and you do not seem to understand that. Interesting that you bring up a Scarlet Letter because we talk about the Scarlet Thread in the Bible. This was the natural blood line of Jesus. So there is a lot here for you to understand. The Bible is a extremely accurate book about real people that really were related to each other. All the findings in science verifys this.

A remember a book called the Source. They took an archaeology excavation and they would make up a story on each level of what life was like back then. This sort of stuff does not usually turn out to be very accurate. For example slaves did not build the pyramids. When they excavate the city the workers lived in they were actually well off. They had all the latest style pottery and they had a fair amount of jewelry. Not the sort of life you would expect a slave to be living.

Scientific is a method is used to test a hypothesis and a lot of the hypothesis turn out not to be true. I see lots of hypothesis about the Bible from skeptics and scoffers and they just about always turn out not to be true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

4.5 billion year earth age

4.5 Billion years but only the righteous will see the perfect day.

Proverbs 4:18 "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

 

[Obliquinaut]

It appears to be that old to whomever accepts the age dating assumptions used in making the 4.5 billion year earth age claim.

Do you live near a hospital? Likely they have a nuclear medicine department. People who utilize radioactive materials to save lives, diagnose diseases, etc. The very same "assumptions" they rely on every single day are pretty much the exact same assumptions geologists rely on to date the age of the earth.

It's a matter of understanding radioactive decay rates.

I do not agree with those assumptions as grounds for any conclusion about age.

If you were challenged to say exactly which assumptions you disagree with I bet they'd look a lot like the standard list Creationists often rely on. And in almost every single case it is largely due to ignorance of the science. For instance you might trot out the usual "We don't know the original ratio of elements in the original rock!" And, of course you would be ignorant of isochron methods which solve that issue. You might also not be aware of crystal lattices and Pauling's Rules etc. etc.

The list goes on.

The truth is that no one knows when and why radioactive elements on earth were formed.

Not sure what the sentence even means.

My understanding is that radioactivity on earth is a result of geologic crushing events the occurred in the flood of Noah.

How on earth could "crushing events" create radioactive elements??? Sorry that's the first I've heard of that. And I spent 11 years in university getting my BS, MS and PhD in geology and then 20 + years doing chemistry research.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[TLK Valentine]

According to Wiki It is a Romance is an 1850 fictional novel in a historical setting.

And yet the author himself claimed otherwise.

The difference is the Bible is not fiction and you do not seem to understand that.

Is wikipedia the final authority on that?

 

[juvenissun]

We could do that; start from scratch. Then the next step is that we'll just have to go back to the evidence and start over... and the evidence will lead us to 4.5 B.Y... again.

No. It is an assumed number. We should know it right now.

 

[juvenissun]

Why would you think it was 10MY old? There is nothing that supports that hypothesis.

We do not know. We can make up some numbers. They would work fine as well. We still can find everything we know now.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. It is an assumed number. We should know it right now.

Your proclamation doesn't make it so. It's a conclusion.

 

[Obliquinaut]

We do not know.

We know it pretty well. And by "we" I mean geologists.

We can make up some numbers. They would work fine as well. We still can find everything we know now.

YOU may not know, but then perhaps you are not familiar with geochemistry or even geology. There is plenty of solid data out there to support an earth that is billions of years old.

You should go to a local community college and take some geology classes! They are fun!

 

[joshua 1 9]

And yet the author himself claimed otherwise.

That will not fly with me. As a theater major the interpretation is totally at the discretion of the audience. At least that is the way I was trained. Of course I am old school and who knows what the new generation wants to make out of things.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That will not fly with me. As a theater major the interpretation is totally at the discretion of the audience. At least that is the way I was trained. Of course I am old school and who knows what the new generation wants to make out of things.

I shall be sure to apply a similar "old school" interpretation to the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I spent 11 years in university getting my BS, MS and PhD in geology

Ok, I will bite, tell me HOW you can figure out the age of the earth JUST using geology and nothing else.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I shall be sure to apply a similar "old school" interpretation to the Bible.

You would be up the creek without a paddle if you disregarded science in your understanding of the Bible. There is NOTHING wrong with old school interpretations as long as you take the new information into consideration. Bishop Ushers book is very accurate and he only looks at the last 6,000 years. He did not try to comment on something they knew nothing about at the time.

Of course the Bible was written 3500 years ago. So that is almost as old school as you can get.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ok, I will bite, tell me HOW you can figure out the age of the earth JUST using geology and nothing else.

As soon as you swim using only your left foot.

 

[joshua 1 9]

As soon as you swim using only your left foot.

In Vietnam they only lost a foot to a claymore mine. Now they usually get both of their legs blown off and sometimes an arm for good measure. They do have a prosthesis they can use for swimming. They used them on dancing with the stars. The polymer science people are working on a new material to make artificial limbs with a 3D printer.