A Calculating Age

lewiscalledhimmaster · Apr 25, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
Meteorites are in space, nothing can leach into them.

Hence my earlier reference to them and the 382 kg (?) of lunar materials.

I learned something new today: radiometric dating is way more effective than carbon dating, in calculating the age of the Earth.

lewiscalledhimmaster · Apr 25, 2015

Zircon Crystal -- Cool!!!

Justatruthseeker · Apr 26, 2015

I wouldn't worry too much about dating methods, since they were formulated under Fermi's electroweak theory which turned out to be incorrect.

Plus I have yet to have anyone believing in mainstream theory explain why they use today's clocks for dating - when if expansion theory is correct - clocks would have run faster as one goes backwards in time. Acceleration adds energy and causes clocks to slow, so as we go backwards acceleration was less and clocks ran faster.

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SLP · Apr 27, 2015

juvenissun said:
I guess your hidden point is: no matter how is it calculated, it will be more than 6000. Is that right?

But don't forget that 6000 is also a calculated value.

It is my understanding that the 6000 value is not 100% consistent when using other bible clues.

RickG · May 8, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
I wouldn't worry too much about dating methods, since they were formulated under Fermi's electroweak theory which turned out to be incorrect.

Fermi's electroweak theory only describes beta decay.
Fermi's electroweak theory was not incorrect. His original research was rejected by the Journal Nature. Several years later Nature stated that their rejection was one of the greatest blunders they ever made.
Fermi's electroweak theory lacked a specific component of understanding that is well understood now. The now modified theory is alive and well and plays a huge part in science today.

lewiscalledhimmaster · May 8, 2015

RickG said:
Fermi's electroweak theory only describes beta decay.

Fermi's electroweak theory was not incorrect. His original research was rejected by the Journal Nature. Several years later Nature stated that their rejection was one of the greatest blunders they ever made.

Fermi's electroweak theory lacked a specific component of understanding that is well understood now. The now modified theory is alive and well and plays a huge part in science today.

As always, providing something interesting to explore.

RickG · May 8, 2015

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
As always, providing something interesting to explore.

It just amazes me the plethora of comments we see by posters incorrectly degrading well established and understood science of which they themselves have no understanding of.

sfs · May 8, 2015

RickG said:
Fermi's electroweak theory only describes beta decay.

Fermi's electroweak theory was not incorrect. His original research was rejected by the Journal Nature. Several years later Nature stated that their rejection was one of the greatest blunders they ever made.

Fermi's electroweak theory lacked a specific component of understanding that is well understood now. The now modified theory is alive and well and plays a huge part in science today.

Fermi didn't have an electroweak theory; he just had a theory of the weak interaction. Which doesn't matter at all for radiometric dating, since that predates both Fermi's theory and electroweak theory and doesn't depend on either. We've been through all of this before with justa: see the thread starting here. At least he hasn't brought up parity violation this time.

Loudmouth · May 8, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
I wouldn't worry too much about dating methods, since they were formulated under Fermi's electroweak theory which turned out to be incorrect.

Since when?

Last I checked, radiometric dating methods are based on simple chemistry and the observed half life of isotopes. We don't need Fermi's electroweak theory to measure half lives. All we need is a scintillation counter. We also don't need Fermi's electroweak theory to measure the relative abundance of isotopes in a rock. All we need is a mass spectrometer. We don't need to know which elements will be included or excluded in a zircon. That is simple chemistry.

Plus I have yet to have anyone believing in mainstream theory explain why they use today's clocks for dating - when if expansion theory is correct - clocks would have run faster as one goes backwards in time.

For radiometric dating, we are talking about the last 4.5 billion years in this solar system. Since all of the meteors and planets have been in the same frame of reference for that time period, why would we need to account for time dilation effects between different frames of reference.

We can add Relativity to the things you don't understand.

HitchSlap · May 8, 2015

whois said:
there is no direct way to measure the age of the universe.
some will say "cosmic background radiation" but this could simply be coincidence.

there are a few more ways, but they are all based one one or more assumptions.

... said no cosmologist, ever.

dad · May 8, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Last I checked, radiometric dating methods are based on simple chemistry and the observed half life of isotopes....

Thanks for admitting that. Almost all daughter materials used for dating do not fit in this category, no one observed isotopes doing anything then.

Loudmouth · May 8, 2015

dad said:
Thanks for admitting that. Almost all daughter materials used for dating do not fit in this category, no one observed isotopes doing anything then.

Do we need to observe a criminal leaving a fingerprint at a crime scene in order to use the fingerprint as evidence?

Please deal with the evidence in an honest manner.

RickG · May 8, 2015

dad said:
Thanks for admitting that. Almost all daughter materials used for dating do not fit in this category, no one observed isotopes doing anything then.

Then you can present credible and verifiable scientific evidence to back that claim?

Loudmouth · May 8, 2015

Can anyone tell us why radiometric dating could not be used to show that rocks are only 6,000 years old?

It seems to me that the only reason creationists reject radiometric dating is that it comes back with results they don't like.

RickG · May 8, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Can anyone tell us why radiometric dating could not be used to show that rocks are only 6,000 years old?

It seems to me that the only reason creationists reject radiometric dating is that it comes back with results they don't like.

Not to mention that the Ussher chronology is extremely inaccurate. It "ASSUMES" D) age of many of the genealogies.

dad · May 8, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Do we need to observe a criminal leaving a fingerprint at a crime scene in order to use the fingerprint as evidence?

If you claim that criminal was the first lifeform, yes.

Please deal with the evidence in an honest manner.

Please use the word evidence in an honest manner.

Loudmouth · May 8, 2015

dad said:
If you claim that criminal was the first lifeform, yes.

You are talking nonsense again.

I am not claiming that the uranium and lead in a zircon was the first lifeform.

Please use the word evidence in an honest manner.

Yet more dishonesty from you.

dad · May 8, 2015

RickG said:
Then you can present credible and verifiable scientific evidence to back that claim?

There is no other evidence available to man but the evidence I draw from for that. If you claim science knows best then post the goods. Evidence is not defined by the way you want to use the word by the way.

dad · May 8, 2015

Loudmouth said:
You are talking nonsense again.

I am not claiming that the uranium and lead in a zircon was the first lifeform.

Yet more dishonesty from you.

It is obvious that evidence is just a word you have abused here. As for zirkons, what about them? Have you some evidence that zircons were not there with the uranium at some point or something?

RickG · May 8, 2015

dad said:
There is no other evidence available to man but the evidence I draw from for that. If you claim science knows best then post the goods. Evidence is not defined by the way you want to use the word by the way.

Besides the fact that the physical laws of science do not change, and we know that because there would be undeniable physical evidence at that change, "yes (Ken [dad] Ham), we were there".

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioisotopes, which produce gamma rays, thus lending scientists the means to measure decay rates of specific radioisotopes from distant supernovae. Those measurements are in agreement with measurements we have on earth today. A specific example is SN1987A which is 169,000 light years distant. And this is not just an isolated observation. SN1991T is 60 million light years distant and yields the same decay rates.

Here's some sources:

Chemo-spectrophotometric evolution of spiral galaxies ? I. The model and the Milky Way
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0010283.pdf
rp-process nucleosynthesis at extreme temperature and density conditions

A Calculating Age

georgemacdonald.info

georgemacdonald.info

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

georgemacdonald.info

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Contributor

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Undefeated!

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency