Deep Time

[Astrophile]

joshua, I specifically stated geologic dating methods in the OP. Please stay on topic.

Are counts of impact craters on the Moon and the other planets a geological dating method? Is radiometric dating of Moon rocks and meteorites a geological dating method?

 

[RickG]

Are counts of impact craters on the Moon and the other planets a geological dating method?

No, not that I am aware of.

Is radiometric dating of Moon rocks and meteorites a geological dating method?

Yes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

and why must we necessarily find the truth (written) in distributed book(s)?!, i don't say there is no such, but why must the truth be found in distributed book(s) so that it may only then be admitted?!, when we delve into such things, we actually deal with science, it is written "God is love", and: "these three things abide: faith, hope, and love", while the science(knowledge) has been designated objectionable as a direction of (the) faith, so if we deal with such a "tree", then it will be right we make it good

Merry Christmas
Blessings

I believe the atonement is two fold. Jesus died to reconcile us with the father. He also died to reconcile us with each other. He is building His temple one stone at a time and it is always interesting to know what God is doing in the lives of our fellow Christians. That is why we are to always be ready to give our testimony to share with others what God is doing in our lives. Notice how when people decide to become atheists and they reject God that also is two fold. They not only reject God but they reject the people of God. Sometimes their problems are with God the Father, sometimes their problems are with Christians and the people of God. But they seem to reject both. Although in some cases they are having problems with people that claim to be christian and are not. Usually they are sincere seeks that are lost but trying to find their way.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Are counts of impact craters on the Moon and the other planets a geological dating method? Is radiometric dating of Moon rocks and meteorites a geological dating method?

They can be, but just like the radiometric dating they depend heavy on human opinions. The average person in America knows that there is a lot of fraud and takes things with a grain of salt and at least some skepticism. It is fairly easy to do the math of when the earth and moon were formed because of the receding rate of the moon and the spin down rate of the earth. You can figure it out with very basic math that any 8th grader can handle.

 

[RickG]

They can be, but just like the radiometric dating they depend heavy on human opinions. The average person in America knows that there is a lot of fraud and takes things with a grain of salt and at least some skepticism. It is fairly easy to do the math of when the earth and moon were formed because of the receding rate of the moon and the spin down rate of the earth. You can figure it out with very basic math that any 8th grader can handle.

With respect to geologic dating methods, what are you suggesting?

 

[lasthero]

They can be, but just like the radiometric dating they depend heavy on human opinions. The average person in America knows that there is a lot of fraud and takes things with a grain of salt and at least some skepticism. It is fairly easy to do the math of when the earth and moon were formed because of the receding rate of the moon and the spin down rate of the earth. You can figure it out with very basic math that any 8th grader can handle.

Can you show us this very basic math?

 

[Astrophile]

They can be, but just like the radiometric dating they depend heavy on human opinions. The average person in America knows that there is a lot of fraud and takes things with a grain of salt and at least some skepticism. It is fairly easy to do the math of when the earth and moon were formed because of the receding rate of the moon and the spin down rate of the earth. You can figure it out with very basic math that any 8th grader can handle.

The recession of the Moon is a different matter from chronology based on counts of impact craters, but it is still of interest.

First, the Moon's recession rate is 38.247±0.004 mm/yr - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration. Since the Moon's mean distance is 384,400 km, the recession time is 10.05 billion years, more than twice the age of the Earth-Moon system.

However, the recession rate depends on the Moon's distance; according to Tim Thompson, who is himself quoting Don DeYoung, 'the rate of change of the lunar distance as a function of time must be proportional to the inverse 6th power of the lunar distance' - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html. This talk of an inverse sixth power equation already looks beyond the range of most 8th-graders.

When one tries to analyse tidal dissipation in shallow seas, including the effects of plate tectonics, the calculations become, in Thompson's words, 'frightfully complicated', and well beyond the range of any 8th-grader; it is hardly surprising that, to quote Thompson again, 'it has taken over 100 years for physicists to generate the mathematical tools, and physical models, necessary to understand the problem.' However, Thompson's conclusion is 'Once all of the details are included in the physical models of the Earth-moon system, we can see that there is no fundamental conflict between the basic physics and an evolutionary time scale for the Earth-moon system.'

 

[USincognito]

Some strata containing dinosaur fossils are dated at 65+ MY's old. It is presumed that radiometric dating was used to determine those ages.

BUT

Recent discoveries show dinosaur bones can contain preserved blood vessels and soft tissue....which shouldn't be there if the strata the fossils were found in were really that old.

That makes one question the radiometric dating techniques.

Bahahahah! This is logic turned on it's head.

Let's see, Dr. Schweitzer's discovery of preserved fragments of soft tissue in MOR-1125 means:

1. What we thought about the preservation of soft tissue under certain conditions was wrong.

or

2. Everything we know about radiometric dating and the age of the earth is wrong.

Seems like William of Occam might have some input on which choice makes more sense.

 

[-57]

Bahahahah! This is logic turned on it's head.

Let's see, Dr. Schweitzer's discovery of preserved fragments of soft tissue in MOR-1125 means:

1. What we thought about the preservation of soft tissue under certain conditions was wrong.

or

2. Everything we know about radiometric dating and the age of the earth is wrong.

Seems like William of Occam might have some input on which choice makes more sense.

Hey atheist dude...how did the tissue survive for moe than 65+ M I L L I O N Y E A R S ?

 

[lasthero]

Hey atheist dude...how did the tissue survive for moe than 65+ M I L L I O N Y E A R S ?

How long does soft tissue normally survive?

 

[-57]

How long does soft tissue normally survive?

Not 65+ millions of years. This is why the evo-minded are scrambling for answers. Be proud in the bible. It's telling the truth.

 

[lasthero]

Not 65+ millions of years.

So how long, then?

And more importantly, most dinosaur fossils do not have soft tissue in them. Why is that only the case with a small few? Wouildn't that indicate that there's some sort of process going on with the small few that keeps it from happening in the vast majority of dinosaur fossils we find?

Come to think of it, why is it always dinosaurs? We find bones - not fossils, but actual bones - of animals like mammoths and smilodons, and they don't have soft tissue on them.

Come to think of it even more, why do we find unfossilized bones of mammoths at all? Why do we only find unfossilized bones of animals that are higher up in the geologic column, like humans and mammoths and giant slothes, but we only find fossils of fone animals that lower, like dinosaurs?

 

[RickG]

...how did the tissue survive for moe than 65+ M I L L I O N Y E A R S ?

I have a request for you-57. So we all can understand by what you mean when describing "soft tissue" in the dinosaur fossil, would you please describe how the "soft tissue" was discovered and exposed?

 

[RickG]

Not 65+ millions of years. This is why the evo-minded are scrambling for answers. Be proud in the bible. It's telling the truth.

Please review the OP and what it specifically asks for us to discuss and not to discuss. Do you have a dating method you would like to discuss? Your cooperation and contributions specific to the topic of this thread are appreciated.

 

[-57]

So how long, then?

And more importantly, most dinosaur fossils do not have soft tissue in them. Why is that only the case with a small few? Wouildn't that indicate that there's some sort of process going on with the small few that keeps it from happening in the vast majority of dinosaur fossils we find?

Come to think of it, why is it always dinosaurs? We find bones - not fossils, but actual bones - of animals like mammoths and smilodons, and they don't have soft tissue on them.

Come to think of it even more, why do we find unfossilized bones of mammoths at all? Why do we only find unfossilized bones of animals that are higher up in the geologic column, like humans and mammoths and giant slothes, but we only find fossils of fone animals that lower, like dinosaurs?

I don't really care if we find tons of soft tissue or just one. Th problem for the old earthers...is THEY FIND SOFT TISSUE.

 

[-57]

Please review the OP and what it specifically asks for us to discuss and not to discuss. Do you have a dating method you would like to discuss? Your cooperation and contributions specific to the topic of this thread are appreciated.

We've been discussing the soft tissue dating method. The soft tissue found in dino...and other fossils...clearly indicate errors with the commonly used dating techniques.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't really care if we find tons of soft tissue or just one. Th problem for the old earthers...is THEY FIND SOFT TISSUE.

I truly believe that if Jesus came back and repeated everything He did in the Gospels, the scientists today would call for His crucifixion.

And moreso if He convinced them beyond a shadow of a doubt that He was God in the flesh.

I can just hear them:

"Why did You let [x] happen?"

"Why did You deceive us?"

"Why did You deceive my grandkids? Now they're in Hell!"

"Why did You give us two creation accounts?"

"Why did You commit genocide, infanticide, and allow incest?"

"Why did [yada yada]?"

 

[-57]

I truly believe that if Jesus came back and repeated everything He did in the Gospels, the scientists today would call for His crucifixion.

And moreso if He convinced them beyond a shadow of a doubt that He was God in the flesh.

I can just hear them:

"Why did You let [x] happen?"

"Why did You deceive us?"

"Why did You deceive my grandkids? Now they're in Hell!"

"Why did You give us two creation accounts?"

"Why did You commit genocide, infanticide, and allow incest?"

"Why did [yada yada]?"

Perhaps Jesus would reply back with....Why did you deny the soft tissue? It's a no-brainer indication your dates are off.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We've been discussing the soft tissue dating method. The soft tissue found in dino...and other fossils...clearly indicate errors with the commonly used dating techniques.

But the OP topic is about geological dating methods. You brought up the soft tissue.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We've been discussing the soft tissue dating method. The soft tissue found in dino...and other fossils...clearly indicate errors with the commonly used dating techniques.

No it doesn't. You want to think it does, but it doesn't.
Do you even know why soft tissue exists in fossils?