The Earth is young

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's still weeks and months projected over thousands if not millions of years. It's a well crafted false assumption, nothing more. I just got flamed by a creationist who considers me compromised because I favor an old earth. I don't really, just consider it irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

Your reasons for your assumption that the science is in error are not scientific.

 

[Job 33:6]

They can be tested over weeks, months and years and then projected over thousands, millions and even billions of years. It's a load of pseudo scientific semantically induced hewy.

You also get rates of decay which are confirmed by the decay rates of other isotopes, and rates of decay confirmed by extrapolation of rates of continental drift.]

For example, you can measure out the mileage between say, africa and north america, check rates of continental drift, and calculate the time it would have taken continents to separate from mesozoic/pangea times. Then take that amount of time, and compare it to dates calculated via multiple radioactive dating methods using varying radioisotopes, and you will find correlation of your dates.

 

[The Barbarian]

No it's what happens when you don't know the history of the sample.

As you might know, geologists can accurately describe how different formations came to be. Would you like to learns some details of the way they do this?

 

[The Barbarian]

Inference proves nothing. The facts are comets of a certain size , moving at a certain speed, in a certain orbital path, losing mass at an accelerated rate the nearer they get to the sun, composed of certain elements.

Actually, comets vary a great deal in size. Kepler's laws allow scientists to accurately determine the orbit of comets by observing a portion of the orbit as it nears the Sun. Would you like to learn how?

It turns out that short-period comets are composed of the same stuff as the Kuiper Belt objects, their orbits originate in the Kuiper Belt, and there are many, many of them out there. Occasionally, one is disturbed in its orbit and falls toward the Sun.

And even though the precision of our observations is quite questionable

We recemtly landed a probe onto a comet. Turns out, the spectroscopic data was correct.

it seems there are body of icy/rocky objects out there in a place that intersects with the potential orbits of these comets.

The farthest part of the orbits of these comets are in the Kuiper belt. The are made of the same stuff as the Kuiper objects, and the discovery of the Kuiper Belt came about by looking at the orbits of those comets. Also note that short period comets only approach the Sun on the plane of the solar system, because the Kuiper Belt is on the plane of the solar system.

Longer-period comets come in at all angles, indicating a much farther-out cloud of comets which is not limited to the plane of the solar system.

That does not prove the comets came from there or will even make it back there.

They can determine that to a very high precision. If the path of the comet is parabolic, it will head back out the the Kuiper belt from which it came, to return later. If the path is hyperbolic, it has gained enough energy from passing by larger planets to escape the solar system.

A few will fall into the Sun or hit other planets. The rest will either escape the solar system or return to the Kuiper Belt and and then begin the trip back toward the Sun.

 

[mark kennedy]

The half life is MEASURED in our labs, not merely assumed. Folks like you make the UNWARRENTED ASSUMPTION that half lives, though constant now, must have varied in the past. A made up assumption to explain why scientists can't be right.

You must have me confused with someone else, I don't care about how old the earth is. I might be old and it might be new but the real issue is when life was formed on the earth. I guess you didn't know who you were talking to.

 

[mark kennedy]

As you might know, geologists can accurately describe how different formations came to be. Would you like to learns some details of the way they do this?

Looked into it a few times, it doesn't really interest me thanks.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your reasons for your assumption that the science is in error are not scientific.

The reasons for the assumptions in the first place are not science, thats the point.

 

[The Barbarian]

What assumptions do you think are made?

 

[The Barbarian]

All you will get from an empirical test is a ratio of one element to a daughter element.

No. If we measure the mass of the isotope and the amount of radiation coming from it, we can find the half-life without any reference to daughter elements at all.

The half life is an exaggerated assumption

No. As you see, it can be quickly determined by the mass of the isotope, compared to the rate of breakdown, as shown by the radiation released.

 

[mindlight]

Actually, comets vary a great deal in size.

I never said they did not. Establishing that a comet is of a certain size now gives you no clue what its original size was or indeed how old it is. Your basic issue is that you cannot separate facts from inference.

Kepler's laws allow scientists to accurately determine the orbit of comets by observing a portion of the orbit as it nears the Sun. Would you like to learn how?

Projecting the orbit of a comet based on an observed portion of its path and even with some understanding of the gravitational impacts of bodies on its route is not the issue here. It does not really matter where they came from. Since our observations of the Kuiper Belt are relatively imprecise we cannot know if an object followed its mathematically prescribed route or was result of a billiard ball type bouncing effect and sudden ejection resulting from the collision of objects. Again inference is not the same as fact. We know the routes they follow now, we know what we can see through a telescope but we speculate if we go too far back.

It turns out that short-period comets are composed of the same stuff as the Kuiper Belt objects, their orbits originate in the Kuiper Belt, and there are many, many of them out there. Occasionally, one is disturbed in its orbit and falls toward the Sun.

Actually facts about the composition of Kuiper Belt objects are not definite enough to be sure about that "same stuff" conclusion. The recent Rosetta mission also raised questions about how old a comet is because of the atmospheric presence of oxygen on the comet. If the comet is billions of years old this should not be there.

Oxygen in comet atmosphere undermines billions of years - creation.com

We recemtly landed a probe onto a comet. Turns out, the spectroscopic data was correct.

There were significant surprises from the Rosetta mission including the fact that the comets water was deuterium rich and therefore distinct from that of earths and the presence of oxygen as atmosphere despite its speculated age. Saying that we have ice rock objects here and there does not really say anything and that these objects seem distinct from each other on close examination questions the theoretical links we would like to see between them.

The farthest part of the orbits of these comets are in the Kuiper belt. The are made of the same stuff as the Kuiper objects, and the discovery of the Kuiper Belt came about by looking at the orbits of those comets. Also note that short period comets only approach the Sun on the plane of the solar system, because the Kuiper Belt is on the plane of the solar system.

Since Pluto the Dwarf planet is one of 3 discovered in the Kuiper Belt I would say direct observation of objects in this belt preceded its prediction. That a cloud of icy rocky objects circles the sun at a distance is fascinating but says nothing about the age of the solar system

Longer-period comets come in at all angles, indicating a much farther-out cloud of comets which is not limited to the plane of the solar system.

Yes there are more things in heaven and earth than we have yet imagined.

They can determine that to a very high precision. If the path of the comet is parabolic, it will head back out the the Kuiper belt from which it came, to return later. If the path is hyperbolic, it has gained enough energy from passing by larger planets to escape the solar system.

A few will fall into the Sun or hit other planets. The rest will either escape the solar system or return to the Kuiper Belt and and then begin the trip back toward the Sun.

All fascinating but irrelevant to the age of the universe. For a comet to survive multiple trips towards the sun and back it will have to be pretty large cause of the amount of material it loses each time. But since we have no idea of how big the original object was it tells us nothing about the age of the universe. We can however speculate about when the objects will finally evaporate into star dust.

 

[The Barbarian]

I never said they did not. Establishing that a comet is of a certain size now gives you no clue what its original size was or indeed how old it is.

No one said that it did. Your basic issue is that you cannot separate facts from inference.

Projecting the orbit of a comet based on an observed portion of its path and even with some understanding of the gravitational impacts of bodies on its route is not the issue here.

It is, but you don't see why. You see, the orbit tells you from where the comet originated. And all the short-term comets originated in the Kuiper belt.

It does not really matter where they came from. Since our observations of the Kuiper Belt are relatively imprecise we cannot know if an object followed its mathematically prescribed route or was result of a billiard ball type bouncing effect and sudden ejection resulting from the collision of objects.

Actually, it does. A collision with a planet or an asteroid would destroy all but the largest Kuiper objects. And it's easy to determine whether or not a planet was close enough to significantly alter it's motion.

Again inference is not the same as fact.

I'm pleased that you now understand this.

We know the routes they follow now, we know what we can see through a telescope but we speculate if we go too far back.

How many orbits do you think we can't accurately determine?

Actually facts about the composition of Kuiper Belt objects are not definite enough to be sure about that "same stuff" conclusion.

Turns out we do know this. And the composition of such objects varies in much the way that comet compositions vary:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/out/kbcomp.pdf

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/comets/background/

The recent Rosetta mission also raised questions about how old a comet is because of the atmospheric presence of oxygen on the comet. If the comet is billions of years old this should not be there.

Why would you think that? Until a comet comes close to the Sun, any oxygen within the Kuiper object would be trapped because of frozen gases covering the object.

Since Pluto the Dwarf planet is one of 3 discovered in the Kuiper Belt I would say direct observation of objects in this belt preceded its prediction

No. The Kuiper Belt was predicted based on the paths of short-term comets. Pluto was thought to be a lone planet, the only object in the outer solar system. Kuiper predicted a belt of icy objects out beyond Pluto. Which turned out to be true.

That a cloud of icy rocky objects circles the sun at a distance is fascinating but says nothing about the age of the solar system

It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.

All fascinating but irrelevant to the age of the universe. For a comet to survive multiple trips towards the sun and back it will have to be pretty large cause of the amount of material it loses each time. But since we have no idea of how big the original object was it tells us nothing about the age of the universe.

It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.

 

[mindlight]

No one said that it did. Your basic issue is that you cannot separate facts from inference.

It is, but you don't see why. You see, the orbit tells you from where the comet originated. And all the short-term comets originated in the Kuiper belt.

Actually, it does. A collision with a planet or an asteroid would destroy all but the largest Kuiper objects. And it's easy to determine whether or not a planet was close enough to significantly alter it's motion.

I'm pleased that you now understand this.

How many orbits do you think we can't accurately determine?

Turns out we do know this. And the composition of such objects varies in much the way that comet compositions vary:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/out/kbcomp.pdf

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/comets/background/

Why would you think that? Until a comet comes close to the Sun, any oxygen within the Kuiper object would be trapped because of frozen gases covering the object.

No. The Kuiper Belt was predicted based on the paths of short-term comets. Pluto was thought to be a lone planet, the only object in the outer solar system. Kuiper predicted a belt of icy objects out beyond Pluto. Which turned out to be true.

It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.

It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.

How does any of this imply an old universe?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.

It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.

How does any of this imply an old universe?

It merely shoots down the notion that short-period comets imply a young Earth.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You must have me confused with someone else, I don't care about how old the earth is. I might be old and it might be new but the real issue is when life was formed on the earth. I guess you didn't know who you were talking to.

Life on earth is dated many more years ago than just 6000 including by radioactive means (carbon dating reliably works back 20000 years or more) and by measurements of such things as annual tree rings and annual lake bottom layers and annual ice core layers and so forth . . . life left traces on earth going back a billion years.

 

[mark kennedy]

Life on earth is dated many more years ago than just 6000 including by radioactive means (carbon dating reliably works back 20000 years or more) and by measurements of such things as annual tree rings and annual lake bottom layers and annual ice core layers and so forth . . . life left traces on earth going back a billion years.

Frankly, no it didn't. What we know about life before 6000 years ago is preserved in minerals that may or may not be much older. As mindlight has pointed out, cross contamination is always a factor.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Frankly, no it didn't. What we know about life before 6000 years ago is preserved in minerals that may or may not be much older. As mindlight has pointed out, cross contamination is always a factor.

Tree ring dating goes back to 1200 years alone. You have to stop believing in tree rings to hold that view.

 

[mark kennedy]

Tree ring dating goes back to 1200 years alone. You have to stop believing in tree rings to hold that view.

I think that's nonsense myself but opinions vary. A tree draws up from the earth that may well be old, it makes no difference.

 

[The Barbarian]

One of my favorites is the coral at Enitiwok atoll. When it was used for nuclear bomb testing, the Seabees drilled cores in the atoll. They went down over a kilometer before they hit volcanic rock.

As the volcano subsided, coral grew on the cone, forming a ring. The subsidence was slower than the coral growth (something like 0.5 cm/year for reef-building coral). So coral has been growing on Enitiwok for something more than 200,000 years.

And that's not the age of the Earth. It's just how long the volcano there has been subsiding. That means the Earth must be much older than the coral at Enitiwok.

And that conclusively ends the possibility that the world is only a few thousand years old.

 

[mindlight]

Barbarian observes:
It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.

It merely explains the reason we continue to see short-period comets.



It merely shoots down the notion that short-period comets imply a young Earth.

So you are making 2 unprovable claims about shortlived comets.

1) that they are similar in construction to the objects observed in the Kuiper belt.
2) that despite the vast size of the volume of space you are talking about and the relative paucity of objects observed there, there is some kind of mechanism that drives these objects into the heart of the solar system as comets.

Creationists are arguing that given the loss rates it is impossible for comets to be that old and this is evidence of a shortlived universe.

We do not know tbe original size of comets. We only have one landing on a comet and none on objects directly in the Kuiper belt which may well be diverse in composition. Collisions that might drive comets into the central solar system are rarely if ever observed and are unlikely to ever occur in a volume of space that is 4/3 pi 50AUs cubed minus 4/3 pi 30 AUs cubed!

In short we do not know and this is a dud argument for young or old earthers.

 

[mindlight]

One of my favorites is the coral at Enitiwok atoll. When it was used for nuclear bomb testing, the Seabees drilled cores in the atoll. They went down over a kilometer before they hit volcanic rock.

As the volcano subsided, coral grew on the cone, forming a ring. The subsidence was slower than the coral growth (something like 0.5 cm/year for reef-building coral). So coral has been growing on Enitiwok for something more than 200,000 years.

And that's not the age of the Earth. It's just how long the volcano there has been subsiding. That means the Earth must be much older than the coral at Enitiwok.

And that conclusively ends the possibility that the world is only a few thousand years old.

Assumes:
1) a uniform rate of growth backtracked over a period of time for which we have no observations and no audit trail.
2) That coral does not grow faster in certain special conditions.
3) That coral was not just created in place and somehow survived the flood.