Debunking Pangaea/Continental Drift Theory.

[Commander]

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Holmes dating of the rock was wrong. In 1945 he published an estimate for the age of the Earth, which he put at 4.5 billion years. Not exactly a hundred miles removed from the currently accepted figure.

Apparently you did not read the post, or click on the link. In 1913 he wrote a book stating the earth was 100 million years old, in 1945 it was changed to what is believed today of 4.5 billion years. Yes, in thirty years the age of the earth grew older by 4.4 billion years. You may, but I will not believe what evolutionary scientist tell us. They are not reliable, they change to often. I do know who does not change, for He is the same yesterday, today, and forever!

 

[Commander]

Gentiles was (and is) the way in which Jews refer to non Jews.

Yes, they are or were. See the eleventh chapter of Romans verse thirty two.

 

[lesliedellow]

Apparently you did not read the post, or click on the link. In 1913 he wrote a book stating the earth was 100 million years old, in 1945 it was changed to what is believed today of 4.5 billion years. Yes, in thirty years the age of the earth grew older by 4.4 billion years. You may, but I will not believe what evolutionary scientist tell us. They are not reliable, they change too often. I do know who does not change, for He is the same yesterday, today, and forever!

Apparently you got your information from a creationist website, which are not exactly renowned for their accuracy. If in 1911 Holmes published a paper stating that he had used radiometric methods to date a rock at 370 million years, two years later he could hardly have been of the opinion that the Earth was 100 million years old. Again, it was Lord Kelvin who made that estimate (who, by the way, was an evangelical Christian).

 

[Commander]

Leslie here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Holmes If Wikipedia is a creationist website so be it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Leslie here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Holmes If Wikipedia is a creationist website so be it.

You certainly do not read very carefully. So try again - especially the bit in bold

"Holmes was a pioneer of geochronology, and performed the first accurate uranium-lead radiometric dating (specifically designed to measure the age of a rock) while an undergraduate in London, assigning an age of 370 Ma to a Devonian rock from Norway, improving on the work of Boltwood who published nothing more on the subject. This result was published in 1911,[7] after his graduation in 1910.

1912 saw Holmes on the staff of Imperial College, publishing his famous book The Age of the Earth in 1913 in which he argued strongly for radioactive methods compared with methods based on geological sedimentation or cooling of the earth (many people still clung to Lord Kelvin's calculations of less than 100 Ma)"

 

[Commander]

Apparently you got your information from a creationist website, which are not exactly renowned for their accuracy. If in 1911 Holmes published a paper stating that he had used radiometric methods to date a rock at 370 million years, two years later he could hardly have been of the opinion that the Earth was 100 million years old. Again, it was Lord Kelvin who made that estimate (who, by the way, was an evangelical Christian).

BTW- I was saying that the age of the earth was at one time 100 million years, and in 30 years it was 4.5 billion. I was using the numbers given by scientist. I had posted that you could read about A. Holmes at the link.

 

[Commander]

You certainly do not read very carefully. So try again - especially the bit in bold

"Holmes was a pioneer of geochronology, and performed the first accurate uranium-lead radiometric dating (specifically designed to measure the age of a rock) while an undergraduate in London, assigning an age of 370 Ma to a Devonian rock from Norway, improving on the work of Boltwood who published nothing more on the subject. This result was published in 1911,[7] after his graduation in 1910.

1912 saw Holmes on the staff of Imperial College, publishing his famous book The Age of the Earth in 1913 in which he argued strongly for radioactive methods compared with methods based on geological sedimentation or cooling of the earth (many people still clung to Lord Kelvin's calculations of less than 100 Ma)"

Holmes on the staff of Imperial College, publishing his famous book The Age of the Earth in 1913 in which he argued strongly for radioactive methods compared with methods based on geological sedimentation or cooling of the earth (many people still clung to Lord Kelvin's calculations of less than 100 Ma). He estimated the oldest Archean rocks to be 1,600 Ma, but did not speculate about the Earth's age.[8]By this time the discovery of isotopes had complicated the calculations and he spent the next years grappling with these. His promotion of the theory over the next decades he earned the nickname of Father of modern geochronology.[9] By 1927 he had revised this figure to 3,000 Ma[10] and in the 1940s to 4,500±100 Ma,

 

[Speedwell]

Holmes on the staff of Imperial College, publishing his famous book The Age of the Earth in 1913 in which he argued strongly for radioactive methods compared with methods based on geological sedimentation or cooling of the earth (many people still clung to Lord Kelvin's calculations of less than 100 Ma). He estimated the oldest Archean rocks to be 1,600 Ma, but did not speculate about the Earth's age.[8]By this time the discovery of isotopes had complicated the calculations and he spent the next years grappling with these. His promotion of the theory over the next decades he earned the nickname of Father of modern geochronology.[9] By 1927 he had revised this figure to 3,000 Ma[10] and in the 1940s to 4,500±100 Ma,

Right. Scientists change their conclusions based on new findings. That's how science works.

 

[Commander]

Right. Scientists change their conclusions based on new findings. That's how science works.

Yeah, it is called ad hoc.

 

[lesliedellow]

Holmes on the staff of Imperial College, publishing his famous book The Age of the Earth in 1913 in which he argued strongly for radioactive methods compared with methods based on geological sedimentation or cooling of the earth (many people still clung to Lord Kelvin's calculations of less than 100 Ma). He estimated the oldest Archean rocks to be 1,600 Ma, but did not speculate about the Earth's age.[8]By this time the discovery of isotopes had complicated the calculations and he spent the next years grappling with these. His promotion of the theory over the next decades he earned the nickname of Father of modern geochronology.[9] By 1927 he had revised this figure to 3,000 Ma[10] and in the 1940s to 4,500±100 Ma,

You are still not reading very carefully. It was Archean rocks which he dated to 1.6 billion years

 

[lesliedellow]

Yeah, it is called ad hoc.

No, its called ad hoc when people do what creationists do - make up hypotheses for which they have no evidence, in order to try and make their ideas fit reality.

 

[Commander]

You are still not reading very carefully. It was Archean rocks which he dated to 1.6 billion years

Really, you are the one taking sentences out of the middle, and not reading to the end.
He estimated the oldest Archean rocks to be 1,600 Ma, but did not speculate about the Earth's age.[8]By this time the discovery of isotopes had complicated the calculations and he spent the next years grappling with these. His promotion of the theory over the next decades he earned the nickname of Father of modern geochronology.[9] By 1927 he had revised this figure to 3,000 Ma[10] and in the 1940s to 4,500±100 Ma.
Do you not understand by stating that the Archean rocks were 1.6 billion years old he was dating the earth, which in the 1940's he changed to 4.5 billion, which is the age of the earth agreed upon by modern scientist?

 

[Speedwell]

Really, you are the one taking sentences out of the middle, and not reading to the end.
He estimated the oldest Archean rocks to be 1,600 Ma, but did not speculate about the Earth's age.[8]By this time the discovery of isotopes had complicated the calculations and he spent the next years grappling with these. His promotion of the theory over the next decades he earned the nickname of Father of modern geochronology.[9] By 1927 he had revised this figure to 3,000 Ma[10] and in the 1940s to 4,500±100 Ma.
Do you not understand by stating that the Archean rocks were 1.6 billion years old he was dating the earth, which in the 1940's he changed to 4.5 billion, which is the age of the earth agreed upon by modern scientist?

What's your point? Should he have ignored new evidence and new dating techniques?

 

[lesliedellow]

Really, you are the one taking sentences out of the middle, and not reading to the end.
He estimated the oldest Archean rocks to be 1,600 Ma, but did not speculate about the Earth's age.[8]By this time the discovery of isotopes had complicated the calculations and he spent the next years grappling with these. His promotion of the theory over the next decades he earned the nickname of Father of modern geochronology.[9] By 1927 he had revised this figure to 3,000 Ma[10] and in the 1940s to 4,500±100 Ma.
Do you not understand by stating that the Archean rocks were 1.6 billion years old he was dating the earth, which in the 1940's he changed to 4.5 billion, which is the age of the earth agreed upon by modern scientist?

The date of an Archean rock could be any figure falling within the Archean period. It does not have to be, and probably is not, the age of the Earth.

 

[lesliedellow]

What's your point? Should he have ignored new evidence and new dating techniques?

He is trying to establish that estimates of the Earth's age have varied, and therefore they might be wrong now. In fact so wrong that the Earth might only be 6,000 years old.

Other than trying to rubbish evolution, what are creationists ever on about?

 

[RickG]

Rick we know that it cannot be scientifically proven, since science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. But, it can be mathematically proven(using what evolutionary science tells us) that the earth/universe is not as old as evolutionary scientist say that it is. For the numbers that evolutionary scientist use are exaggerated. Have a blessed day.

Age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Commander]

What's your point? Should he have ignored new evidence and new dating techniques?

According to scientist, is the earth not 4.5 billion years old as stated in the 1940's?

 

[Commander]

Age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution.

Oh, really. It has everything to do with it.

 

[Commander]

The date of an Archean rock could be any figure falling within the Archean period. It does not have to be, and probably is not, the age of the Earth.

Then tell us Leslie, what is the age of the earth?

 

[Commander]

He is trying to establish that estimates of the Earth's age have varied, and therefore they might be wrong now. In fact so wrong that the Earth might only be 6,000 years old.

Other than trying to rubbish evolution, what are creationists ever on about?

Amen, brother.