Age of the earth

blader · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

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

Calcium in the air? Radioactive calcium? Ooooookkkkaaayyyy....

npetreley · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
The measurment of calcuim dust in the air is Radiometric dating???

Take a remedial reading comprehension class. He wasn't saying that. He offered ice core evidence, and you countered that with a challenge about radiometric dating, as if that was the issue. But the issue he was raising had nothing to do with radiometric dating, it had to do with calcium dust in the ice.

In your eagerness to assume everyone who believes in a young earth is a moron, you don't even seem to bother to read what people are saying.

Duane Morse · Aug 14, 2002

The measurment of calcuim dust in the air is Radiometric dating???
No, and that is not what I said. Someone else threw in that term.
This is a measurement of the relative dust content in the atmosphere using the calcium content in the ice.

blader · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

Take a remedial reading comprehension class. He wasn't saying that. He offered ice core evidence, and you countered that with a challenge about radiometric dating, as if that was the issue. But the issue he was raising had nothing to do with radiometric dating, it had to do with calcium dust in the ice.

In your eagerness to assume everyone who believes in a young earth is a moron, you don't even seem to bother to read what people are saying.

Why isn't radiometric dating an issue, when the topic at hand is the age of the earth? The most reliable, most accurate evidence we have is radiometric dating, which YECs can never explain, aside from ignoring it and claiming it "isn't an issue." Ice core dating is one thing, but he will need to

#1. explain why ice core dating is more accurate than radiometric dating,

#2. explain why a half dozen different methods of radiometric dating agree on their dates. is it just coincidence?

Duane Morse · Aug 14, 2002

Radiometric dating may be deceptive. We do not know what the conditions were before the flood and Babel. Things changed drastically with those events. And such simple things as a bioplastic coating on fibers can alter Carbon-14 dating results. The isotopes that are measured may have been changed at some point in the past, and until someone comes up with a way to find out when and what happened those methods are also best guesses based on current values.
The ice is another matter. It is just frozen water that contains particles and gasses. And with the ice core data I am just matching events to the data.

blader · Aug 14, 2002

The only way that radioactive half lives can change is if the laws of physics themselves change. That's a hefty assumption, especially considering that you apply a double standard to your own ice core dating methods that are somehow immune to these imaginary "flood" and "Babel" effects (as if they're all historical fact!).

And they say evolutionists have a big imagination!

Oh, and by the way, carbon-14 earth dates are not considered reliable by scientists because of the ease of contamination. Other isotopes are used to calculate these dates.

In any case, I notice that you even acknowledge that the current number is the best guess. The best guesses are just that, the BEST guesses. 4.5 billion years.

Duane Morse · Aug 14, 2002

Looking at dust content is quite different than measuring the radioactive isotopes. IF something changed a quality of the isotope, or even changed the half-life, then those methods are faulty beyond a certain point in the past.
Personally, I did not think evolutionists have a very good imagination.
A good imagination could figure out how the Bible can be true.
And a good imagination comes from God, and evolutionists are not looking in that direction for their answers. That is why they do not have the imagination necessary to really understand the Bible or reality.

DocBrown · Aug 14, 2002

Sorry to interupt but speaking on the subject of radiometric dating, a method I've personally used for years as an assistant to several scientists, more times than I'd like to admit to we have had to fudge sometimes in order to satisfy our fearless leaders. You see when dating we must first ask for an estimate of what the scientist is looking for then we test using this as our control.

Say they are looking for a date like: 8 Million years.

Our test come up with:

a. 4,100,000

b. 3,400,300

c. 3,200,455

We submit this data to the scientist. In most cases with an honest scientist he will ask for more test but norrow the control to somewhere around 3 Million years. Then the results will come closer each time we test and the results of 3 million years instead of the 8 million prove true. However, and like I said in some cases we have scientist who insist they have the 8 million number no matter what our test indicate. So instead of being hasseled any more we simple give him what he wants with no further actual testing, just give him the numbers.

We strive to be honest with our results but (and I hate to admit this) we weren't always. I'm now retired from this postition but I know that this continues to this day.

From reading what I have on this board I wonder at times if some of those who seem opposed to Christians really know any scientists personally. They seem to be placed in a high place and almost worshiped yet they are only human beings. They mostly strive to be honest but not always. That is the reason they came up with all the checks and balances that are now in place. But unless the dishonest scientist thinks he won't be checked on something then he'll fudge on it. I've seen this happen.

Thought you might like to hear from someone who actually has performed the testing that you rely on. You see scientist for the most part set in from of computers and play golf. We assistants had to roll around in the dirt and dig up data.

Doc

 

 

 

 

LewisWildermuth · Aug 14, 2002

Sorry about misreading your post but still why throw out the best timekeeping tool we have? All clocks are currently set by this method so it can be all that bad.

If the flood (I don't understand how Babel could of but anyway)/ babel incident changed how radioactive decay works that is great!!! Now we have a way of pinpointing without question when they happened!

Now show me exactly where the decay rate changes from what we see now. This should be obvious, like one layer dating 4000 yo and the next one or so below it dating much older, and it should be evident across the globe. I'll be waiting your findings and glad to see you get that nobel prize.

LewisWildermuth · Aug 14, 2002

Doc, if this is true then you should expose this, I am sure there are plenty of media outlets that you could go to that would love this kind of story... It shoud be easy to do.

If not, I'll have to assume that you are telling stories... Again lying is not a good way to get people to convert, no matter how good the reason.

Sauron · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by DocBrown

From reading what I have on this board I wonder at times if some of those who seem opposed to Christians really know any scientists personally. They seem to be placed in a high place and almost worshiped yet they are only human beings. They mostly strive to be honest but not always. That is the reason they came up with all the checks and balances that are now in place. But unless the dishonest scientist thinks he won't be checked on something then he'll fudge on it. I've seen this happen.

Thought you might like to hear from someone who actually has performed the testing that you rely on. You see scientist for the most part set in from of computers and play golf. We assistants had to roll around in the dirt and dig up data.

Doc

Actually, Doc, there are several scientists that I know from email correspondence (such as Andrew MacRae) who would thoroughly dispute your story.

In addition, a number of the frequent posters on talk.origins are scientists who use radiometric dating as part of their daily work.  And who would also dispute your story.

Why don't you bring your accusation to them?  My guess is that you are not being quite as honest here as you are making out.

  

  

  

  [/B][/QUOTE]

Sauron · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by DocBrown
Sorry to interupt but speaking on the subject of radiometric dating, a method I've personally used for years as an assistant to several scientists, more times than I'd like to admit to we have had to fudge sometimes in order to satisfy our fearless leaders. You see when dating we must first ask for an estimate of what the scientist is looking for then we test using this as our control.

Say they are looking for a date like: 8 Million years.

Our test come up with:

a. 4,100,000

b. 3,400,300

c. 3,200,455

Just curious, Doc - what kind of material were you dating?  And what specific dating technology/process were you using? 

Feel free to go into all the gory details, step by step.  Don't worry about being too technical, either.  The more technical details, the better.

Thanks.

Duane Morse · Aug 14, 2002

Well, think about what actually happened at Babel.
Everyone had the same speech and language. And it is said in that manner - language and speech. That sounds to me like language and speech are two different things, or at least two different aspects of one thing. I think it would be thought and speech.
They all thought in the same manner and spoke in the same manner.
Then, suddenly, everyone had different thought and speech patterns.
One minute we were speaking i.e. English, and the next you were speaking English and had English thoughts. While I was now speaking Chinese and thinking in Chinese. And writing in Chinese. We could no longer understand each other or anyone around us.
So, of course the building of the tower was left off because we could no longer understand each other or the plans for the tower.
It was sudden. Bang. Done. In the blink of an eye.
What could cause that?
And if the language and speech were changed it stands to reason that our physical appearance changed also. so where there was one race, there are now many.
But again, what could cause that?
A DNA change could cause it. A DNA change possibly caused by a radiation effect.
And if a radiation effect changed the DNA of the people, then that same radiation could have caused many more changes in both the animal life and in the environment.
And as the Bible states, it was God going down to do the changing, so God controlled the radiation in whatever fashion God wished.
Noah brought certain animals on the ark, and science will tell us that the great number of species could not have been on that ark, large though it was. But if the same division came on the animals as had come on the people, then that question is pretty easy to answer.
As for the radioactive decay, same thing. What changed at Babel besides the language and speech of the people?
And that happened only about 150 years after the flood. Do not take Babel too lightly, a lot happened at that time.
And the Chinese calander began then also. 1953 B.C.

npetreley · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by blader
#2. explain why a half dozen different methods of radiometric dating agree on their dates. is it just coincidence?

First you'll have to demonstrate that this is true. Can you present such evidence? Can you show how someone did exactly 6 tests using different radiometric dating techniques on the same samples, and they all agree? If not, can you show ALL of the test results, including all of the results that were discarded as "anomalies"?

Finally, you're simply not being scientific if you think that the results are accurate just because you get consistent results using different types of radiometric dating. Remember that you're using tests based on the same mechanisms and assumptions (radioactive decay, amount of parent/daughter materials), so a certain degree of consistency will occur even if your dates are wildly inaccurate. That's why most scientific experiments include tests with unrelated mechanisms and variables - to eliminate this kind of potential problem.

LewisWildermuth · Aug 14, 2002

And ofcourse if the Earth was bathed in this magic radiation and all of these changes occured suddenly why can't anyone find any evidence for it?

Could it be that these events are not literaly true but are ment to reviel a spiritual truth?

Nahhhh, I'd rather make God a liar purposely sending people to hell because he planted "false" evidence in the physical world than learn anything spiritualy...

Duane Morse · Aug 14, 2002

Do you think I am all knowing? Ask God.
God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.
Well, evolution and uniformitarianism are foolish and weak things.

Sauron · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Do you think I am all knowing? Ask God.

But God's not the one proposing the idea of altered DNA to explain languages at Babel.  That's YOUR idea.

So asking you is the proper thing to do.

God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.
Well, evolution and uniformitarianism are foolish and weak things.

Click to expand...

Fine. Show us your proof for your viewpoint.

npetreley · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by DocBrown
However, and like I said in some cases we have scientist who insist they have the 8 million number no matter what our test indicate. So instead of being hasseled any more we simple give him what he wants with no further actual testing, just give him the numbers.

This is very common in all fields. I worked on a project where an aluminum company was convinced that the ultrasonic reflection echo data in molten aluminum was always at a 4:1 ratio when done properly. While replacing their analog equipment with our custom-designed digital equipment, we discovered their equipment was miscalibrated and the ratio was not 4:1. They were very upset when our equipment showed a different ratio. The customer insisted that it was 4:1 no matter what we said, so we simply had to fudge the digital data to reproduce the 4:1 ratio.

Kind of like evolutionists -- they insist they know the answers no matter what the evidence says.

LewisWildermuth · Aug 14, 2002

I did ask God, I asked many times when I saw that what I had been taught as a young Christian by creationist were at best vast mistatements about what science was and what it taught and it's implications.

And God pointed my heart to several things.

1. God is not a liar.

2. Things do not have to be literaly true to be spiritualy true (see Jesus's many parables)

3. Looking to nature reviels God's glory.

4. When God is talking with Job, one point is repeated over and over again, until we understand how God make the universe work we will never even begin to understand why God did anything. So IMO understanding how the universe works is very important and can tell us many things about God.

5. God would not design something that would purposely discourage belief in Him, and nature does not... But nature pitted against a literal translation of the Bible does... If I have to throw out one I'll toss mans literal interpretations rather than the handywork of God.

LewisWildermuth · Aug 14, 2002

Nick, Doc.

Your statements are vastly interesting.

You seem to supporty lying to people when the truth is uncomfortable...

Is this a very Christian thing to do?

Age of the earth

Evilutionist

pumpkin sailor

Well-Known Member

Evilutionist

Well-Known Member

Evilutionist

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

pumpkin sailor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

pumpkin sailor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency