Age of the earth

[Didaskomenos]

I'm looking for some scientific evidence from those who believe the earth is older than 6K-10K years old. I'm referring to geological and anthropological/archaeological evidence that is unrelated to evolutionary theory and astronomy (since Genesis refers primarily to the earth itself). I'd like to show some of my fellow Christians some scientific evidence arguing against last-Wednesdayism that isn't even related to evolution.

Maybe some links if nothing else. I'd appreciate it!

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
I'm looking for some scientific evidence from those who believe the earth is older than 6K-10K years old. I'm referring to geological and anthropological/archaeological evidence that is unrelated to evolutionary theory and astronomy (since Genesis refers primarily to the earth itself). I'd like to show some of my fellow Christians some scientific evidence arguing against last-Wednesdayism that isn't even related to evolution.

Maybe some links if nothing else. I'd appreciate it!

Here's a whole library full.  Happy hunting.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

 

[npetreley]

I found a rock dated as 4.6 billion years old, but if you look closely, it says "Copyright G~d, 4000 BC, all rights reserved." I'd say that's pretty good evidence.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Wow, God marked his stuff in English! But since He didn't use His real name, we're not sure what god marked it. Since it's in modern English, I suspect that it was the neo-drudic god, perhaps Chumkilbw.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Wow, God marked his stuff in English! But since He didn't use His real name, we're not sure what god marked it. Since it's in modern English, I suspect that it was the neo-drudic god, perhaps Chumkilbw.

I didn't say it was English. It was written in Esperanto. That was my personal translation.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Here are some interesting ones...

Liquid water on earth about 4 billion years ago...

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm/29429.html

The Oklo Fossil Reactors. The remnants found can only be explained by natural nuclear reactors dateing back billions of years... There is currently not enough uranium left in the upper crust to support a natural reactor anymore, probably a good thing

http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/index.shtml

Here is a nice simpl;e little page from the USGS...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

and another...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

And some more...

http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.html

Oldest pieces of the US.... And some neat stuff about them if you follow the links...

How is that for a start?

http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.html

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I found a rock dated as 4.6 billion years old, but if you look closely, it says "Copyright G~d, 4000 BC, all rights reserved." I'd say that's pretty good evidence.

When you flip it over, on the bottom does it say "Made in Taiwan"? I have one of those, too.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Thanks for the link, Sauron. Lewis - great stuff! I appreciate it.

 

[Duane Morse]

I find it interesting that you are looking for evidence going in either direction.
Does not the search for Truth demand that you look at the data and draw the conclussion from that?

I have some evidence in the form of an ice core drilling that supports the young earth theory very well. In fact, much of the evidence availabe today can be viewed from both standpoints.
But this particular ice core is believed to be rather unique. It is believed to have never gone through a melt cycle. So it has been continuously accumulating over the entire history of the earth as far back as that ice has been there.
And what it shows is astonishing.
In lining up dates both from the Bible and from current findings, such as the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa around 535 A.D., there is clear evidence that it is an accurate account of the climate for the past 6000 years or so.
Not the ~110,000 years the so-called scientists asign to it.

Look at the DATA and draw your conclutions.

Be seeing you
Duane

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
I have some evidence in the form of an ice core drilling that supports the young earth theory very well. In fact, much of the evidence availabe today can be viewed from both standpoints.

Baloney. I challenge you to explain how radiometric dating data can be explained from a young-earth viewpoint.

But this particular ice core is believed to be rather unique. It is believed to have never gone through a melt cycle. So it has been continuously accumulating over the entire history of the earth as far back as that ice has been there.
And what it shows is astonishing.
In lining up dates both from the Bible and from current findings, such as the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa around 535 A.D., there is clear evidence that it is an accurate account of the climate for the past 6000 years or so.

I'm not quite so sure what is so remarkable about an ice core 6000 years old. Do you have a reference which we might use to evaluate your evidence?

 

[Duane Morse]

Radiometric dating??
It is a measurement of the relative dust content in the atmosphere, calcium to be specific, that forms a graph over time. The scientists assigned a dating of around 110,000 years for it. I put it on a 6000 year timeline to see what would happen. It shows the climate conditions. The higher the spike on the graph the more dust in the atmosphere and so a cooler climate.
The eruption at Krakatoa in 535 A.D. is the second tallest spike on the graph, the tallest being just after that around 630 A.D..
That eruption is the largest known volcanic eruption, it changed the worlds climate, and the latest tree ring data also shows that the dust event of 535 A.D. was actually a double event. But no one is sure what the second event was. But both are very clear in this ice core graph at precicely the right time period IF the graph is on a 6000 year timescale.

The remarkable thing is not a 6000 year old ice core, but a body of ice that has not gone through numerous thaw and accumulate cycles. And quite possibly no thaw cycles at all. The time periods assigned to ice cores are all just best guess methods. No one has a way of determining the exact ages of the ice. So it is necessary to match other data with the ice data to arrive at the correct datings.

If you have CorelDraw I can send you the original file and you can see what I have done. If not, I can output it to a bitmap in .tga, .jpg, or whatever. But that will create a very large file if I am to keep things readable.

Be seeing you
Duane

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

When you flip it over, on the bottom does it say "Made in Taiwan"? I have one of those, too.

G~d sub-contracted it, I guess.

 

[Morat]

  Duane: Your post was a joke, right? If it's not, I'll start wading through it and fixing stuff, but if you're just being funny, I'm not going to bother.

 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
The eruption at Krakatoa in 535 A.D. is the second tallest spike on the graph, the tallest being just after that around 630 A.D..
That eruption is the largest known volcanic eruption, it changed the worlds climate, and the latest tree ring data also shows that the dust event of 535 A.D. was actually a double event. But no one is sure what the second event was. But both are very clear in this ice core graph at precicely the right time period IF the graph is on a 6000 year timescale.

Where is this ice core from? Who collected it? How did you get ahold of it?

The remarkable thing is not a 6000 year old ice core, but a body of ice that has not gone through numerous thaw and accumulate cycles. And quite possibly no thaw cycles at all.

Isn't that called Antarctica?

The time periods assigned to ice cores are all just best guess methods. No one has a way of determining the exact ages of the ice. So it is necessary to match other data with the ice data to arrive at the correct datings.

Ah, but your method is The One True Ice Core Dating Method(tm). How have you established that your method is superior to all the others? Has your work been peer-reviewed?

If you have CorelDraw I can send you the original file and you can see what I have done. If not, I can output it to a bitmap in .tga, .jpg, or whatever. But that will create a very large file if I am to keep things readable.

Post it to the web. Try photos.yahoo.com

 

[Duane Morse]

No joke.
And I did not say my dating method was the one true ice core dating method. I said I laid it out on a 6000 year time scale to see what it would show. They chose a time period of around 110,000 years. But that was a choice between three best guess methods. They guess at the datings, I did the same. I just used the Bible for my best guess.
If you do a search for
Pre-Holocene Rapid Climate Change from the ARCSS/GISP2 Ice Core
you will find where I found it.
It is a core from Greenland.

 

[Lacmeh]

This mwthod proves exactly nothing.
There is no chance, that there is an iceblock out there, that hasn´t melted since the forming of earth. Since the continents wandered alot around and the magnetic field, too, there is no unbroken ice since the beginning.

 

[npetreley]

Are you talking about this?

 

[Duane Morse]

That's it.
See the second tallest spike at around 25,000 years past on their scale?
Well, on a 6000 year scale it is at 535 A.D.
It's leading edge (going from past to present) lines up precicely with the Krakatoa eruption.
See the third from the last at around 75?
The leading edge (going from past to present) lines up precicely with the previous passing of Hale-Bopp comet in 2209 B.C.. It is also 105 years before the flood and just at the time Noah began to build the ark and had his three sons. I suspect that part of Hale-Bopp broke off the main body of the comet and impacted the earth, causing a dust event that shows up on the graph.
The tall spike just above that one is also dateable Biblically.
It was the events at Babel when God confounded language and speech and broke up the earths land mass. Peleg was about 50 years old, and this was 1953 B.C., the same year as the Chinese calander began.
That one was caused by a physical pole-shift of the earth. Or as the Bible puts it, God turned the world upside down.
There is another one coming, by the way.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Look at the DATA and draw your conclutions.

I've already looked at data and drawn my conclusions. I simply was looking for some concise resources to show others. And if you'll look at my initial post, you'll see that I didn't ask for your input, especially your criticism. But thanks anyway!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Radiometric dating??
It is a measurement of the relative dust content in the atmosphere, calcium to be specific, that forms a graph over time. The scientists assigned a dating of around 110,000 years for it.

The measurment of calcuim dust in the air is Radiometric dating???

Where did you hear this???

I always thought it was the measurement of radioactive decay in volcanic rocks, shame on all those textbooks and scientists for lying to us for all these years!

Just incase you want to learn what real radiometeric dating is here are a few pages for you...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 19