Deep Time

[RickG]

I am not off topic at all. How ironic that you want to be shallow about deep time and the reality that we really are looking at how our mind observes deep time more then we are actually looking at time itself.

Please revisit the OP. Is there a geologic dating method you would like to discuss?

 

[joshua 1 9]

But none of those creatures are humans, ancient or otherwise.

Humans are mammals and humans are vertebrates. Mammals and vertebrates had their beginning during the Cambrian explosion (radiation). This was the beginning of all hard bodied organisms. Humans reproduce by recombination and this began with pond scum. So according to the theory of evolution our beginning goes back to scum. We may even still retain the memory of that somewhere in one or our innermost primitive layers. As they say it is like pealing layers off of a onion until you get back to your core or your beginning. The seed that we all came from in what we all call the tree of life. In fact the whole universe started off as a seed not bigger then a mustard seed.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Please revisit the OP. Is there a geologic dating method you would like to discuss?

Oh wait maybe you do not understand. I am talking about kabbalism, which is Hebrew based. So that may be different from the creationism that you find on Christian web sites. Einstein for example was "Jewish" and he had Kabbalah beliefs in his teaching. Einstein's science in Germany was said to be: “Jewish science” and they rejected it.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html The age of the universe.

 

[RickG]

Oh wait maybe you do not understand. I am talking about kabbalism, which is Hebrew based. So that may be different from the creationism that you find on Christian web sites. Einstein for example was "Jewish" and he had Kabbalah beliefs in his teaching. Einstein's science in Germany was said to be: “Jewish science” and they rejected it.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html The age of the universe.

I'm afraid we are beginning to stray off topic a bit. Just to keep everyone update with the topic of this thread here's the OP again.

"Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread."
​

Please pay particular attention to the emphasized underlines and bold type above. Thank you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

I understand that Dr. Gerald Schroeder is not a geologist, but he has a lot to say about the age of the universe based on Einsteins theory of relativity. If you want to look at decay rate you have to know that time itself is relative. This is creationism and actually this is Einsteins theory of relativity that has pretty much been demonstrated to be true over and over again.

The point is if you want to be deluded into believing that the universe came into existence though purely natural causes that did not originate with God then you are also going to have to buy into the time delusion. Darwin knew that his theory would not work without being deluded into believing that you have lots and lots of time to work with. We always have cause and effect. Now you want to study the effect of time without looking at the cause or origin of time.

 

[lesliedellow]

I understand that Dr. Gerald Schroeder is not a geologist, but he has a lot to say about the age of the universe based on Einsteins theory of relativity. If you want to look at decay rate you have to know that time itself is relative. This is creationism and actually this is Einsteins theory of relativity that has pretty much been demonstrated to be true over and over again

The problem with there is that you would have to come up with a plausible reason for God specifying the age of the universe in terms of a clock ticking on a hypothetical, and unimaginably massive, planet. After all, it is not exactly the most obvious thing for him to have done; especially as the ancient Israelites weren't aware of the existence of other planets - let alone unimaginably massive ones.

All of that assumes, of course, that God would even be interested in telling us the age of the universe.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Humans are mammals and humans are vertebrates. Mammals and vertebrates had their beginning during the Cambrian explosion (radiation). This was the beginning of all hard bodied organisms. Humans reproduce by recombination and this began with pond scum. So according to the theory of evolution our beginning goes back to scum. We may even still retain the memory of that somewhere in one or our innermost primitive layers. As they say it is like pealing layers off of a onion until you get back to your core or your beginning. The seed that we all came from in what we all call the tree of life. In fact the whole universe started off as a seed not bigger then a mustard seed.

That is not a reply to my statement. The fact is: we do not find humans, ancient or otherwise, alongside Mesozoic or older fossils.
And the Cambrian Explosion wasn't radiation (if I'm reading your post correctly). It was a surge in new lifeforms due to the change in conditions on the Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is not a reply to my statement. The fact is: we do not find humans, ancient or otherwise, alongside Mesozoic or older fossils.

Keep looking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Keep looking.

We have looked, and we do not find large mammals or humans in Mesozoic sediment.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have looked, and we do not find large mammals or humans in Mesozoic sediment.

Then look for Mesozoic sediment in humans.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then look for Mesozoic sediment in humans.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now that's just nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that's just nonsense.

At least we're getting somewhere then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

At least we're getting somewhere then.

So you admit what you've just put down is completely unscientific?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you admit what you've just put down is completely unscientific?

Expecting science from the Bible is like expecting a computer manual from Bill Gate's diary.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Expecting science from the Bible is like expecting a computer manual from Bill Gate's diary.

Then why, and I'm very positive that I've asked this before, are you posting excerpts from the Bible in a thread when it is specifically stated in the OP that the discussion is to be about science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why, and I'm very positive that I've asked this before, are you posting excerpts from the Bible in a thread when it is specifically stated in the OP that the discussion is to be about science?

I think because the OP forgets that God is the Author of [true] science.

 

[RickG]

I understand that Dr. Gerald Schroeder is not a geologist, but he has a lot to say about the age of the universe based on Einsteins theory of relativity. If you want to look at decay rate you have to know that time itself is relative. This is creationism and actually this is Einsteins theory of relativity that has pretty much been demonstrated to be true over and over again.

Time is relative to how we measure it which is based on the length of a year, which is the time it takes for the earth to make a complete orbit around the sun. That is a year and we measure time by divisions of that standard. So enough about what is relative. To conflate what time is beyond that standard is off topic.

As for decay rates we know they have not changed. We know this on three levels.

1. If there were some physical change in the physical structure and properties of any element those changes would be seen at the point of change. Conversely, in dating rocks through numerous different methods and with numerous different isotopes, we so no change in those physical properties at any point in time what so ever. Measuring radionuclide decay rates is a continuous ongoing endeavor in labs around the world, not to see if a decay rate will change, but to measure those rates more accurately.

2. Supernovae produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes from gamma ray with frequencies and fading rates that match present decay rates. This includes supernova 1987A, 169,0000 light years distant, SN1991T, sixty million light-years distant, and observations of supernovae several billion light-years away. (Knödlseder 2000), (Prantzos 1999), (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

3. And a special note, do not confuse the well known and studied oscillations of some cosmogenic istopes due to Earth's position in its orbit around the sun. This does not affect any dating method. Oscillations are just that, oscillations, not rate changes, because they are consistent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think because the OP forgets that God is the Author of [true] science.

No. You're not stating that in any way shape or form. I'm pretty certain that as a Presbyterian, RickG does believe that God is the creator of the world, and therein all science, but posting Bible verses has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[RickG]

A new dating method of ultrasensitive isotope trace analysis has been recently developed, Atom Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA), has captured the attention of the Earth Science community.

This method is based on the technique of laser manipulation of neutral atoms used to count individual 85Kr and 81Kr atoms present in a natural krypton gas sample with isotopic abundances in the range of 10(-11) and 10(-13), respectively. The method is free of contamination from other isotopes and elements and can be applied to many different isotope tracers for a wide range of applications.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. You're not stating that in any way shape or form. I'm pretty certain that as a Presbyterian, RickG does believe that God is the creator of the world, and therein all science, but posting Bible verses has nothing to do with this thread.

Perhaps you guys need a lesson on how Psalm 19 works?