"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2009

CraigBaugher said:
I not saying God didn't create everything in 6-days, 6,000-years, 6,000,000-years, or 6,000,000,000-years.

How about 6 seconds or 6 minutes or 6 hours? Why is that among the non-literalists who interpret "day" as something other than a 24-hour period, they always interpret it as some time frame greater than a day, and never less than a day?

gaara4158 · Mar 8, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I agree.It might be logical --- but God does nothing by accident --- and He certainly didn't just make it "look like" it happened.Again, I agree.

So then what merit, if any, does "embedded age" have? Right now it's meaningless drivel.

Also, since it definitely "looks like" the universe has been around for c13 billion years, and God isn't responsible, who is? Are you subtly indicating your atheism?

GhostSlug · Mar 8, 2009

AV, why are you making arguments for something that is completely illogical? In the beginning of the thread, you seemed certain in your "embedded age" but now you claim it is "completely illogical"? Bananaslug has been talking about this thread for a couple days now so I thought I would jump in on the fun!

It might be logical --- but God does nothing by accident --- and He certainly didn't just make it "look like" it happened

.

Pardon me if I am wrong, but this sounds to me like you are seriously contradicting yourself. Isn't that what "embedded age" is?:o

On the KT boundary (which is assumed to have 65million years of "embedded age") did God just insert a line of iridium rich material complete with shocked quartz and tekkites for fun? Everything about that points to an asteroid impact! It looked like you completely ignored that line of evidence when it was presented to you as well.

GhostSlug · Mar 8, 2009

AV1611VET said:
How about 6 seconds or 6 minutes or 6 hours? Why is that among the non-literalists who interpret "day" as something other than a 24-hour period, they always interpret it as some time frame greater than a day, and never less than a day?

That is a good point. I'll give you that.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2009

GhostSlug said:
AV, why are you making arguments for something that is completely illogical?

Because God makes it clear that our ways are not His ways.

Isaiah 55:8 said:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

This means that God does not operate through the Scientific Method.

Here is even stronger language:

Psalm 86:8 said:
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.

And I don't know anything about the K-T Boundary --- and don't care to.

This thread is about Embedded Age.

Cabal · Mar 8, 2009

Still waiting, AV.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=51022632&postcount=304

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2009

Cabal said:
Still waiting, AV.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=51022632&postcount=304

QV please --- 303.

And I apologize.

Cabal · Mar 8, 2009

AV1611VET said:
QV please --- 303.

And I apologize.

Apology accepted, and thank you very much.

gaara4158 · Mar 8, 2009

Because God makes it clear that our ways are not His ways. Originally Posted by Isaiah 55:8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

This means that God does not operate through the Scientific Method.

I'm afraid even this doesn't give you license to pass off an illogical claim as a valid argument.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2009

gaara4158 said:
I'm afraid even this doesn't give you license to pass off an illogical claim as a valid argument.

Well, ain't that just a downright crying shame?

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2009

Cabal said:
Apology accepted, and thank you very much.

Thank YOU ---

gaara4158 · Mar 8, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Well, ain't that just a downright crying shame?

You don't seem to get it. This means you lose...

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2009

gaara4158 said:
You don't seem to get it. This means you lose...

Big deal --- I started out lost --- until I placed my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

Now I'm a child of the King!

gaara4158 · Mar 8, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Big deal --- I started out lost --- until I placed my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

Now I'm a child of the King!

Good to hear you won't be bringing up embedded age anymore

Can't wait to see what you come up with next, though!

GhostSlug · Mar 9, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Because God makes it clear that our ways are not His ways.This means that God does not operate through the Scientific Method.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

"God's ways are not our ways'' is not a phrase meant to uphold illogical claims. Certain qualities of God may be above human understanding, but the Bible makes it clear that he is not a deceiver (though certain verses show he does occasionally). If God created everything, that means he is also responsible for creating the phenomena that we use science to explain. In short, he is also the God of science!

This thread is about Embedded Age.

Well, the KT Boundary is an important falsification for "embedded age". If 65 million year old rock was "embedded" with that age, it was also "embedded" with the iridium-rich, tekkite-filled layer that not only marks the boundary between the dinosaur extinction and the mammalian radiation but shows a cataclismic event in Earth's history (well beyond 6,000 years). You either need to find a way to explain such a geological event or stop using "embedded age".

Tomk80 · Mar 9, 2009

juvenissun said:
Bad attitude. I don't think I want to explain anything to you again.

It's the same as yours, so you have no reason to complain.

Let's try again. I have stated that if you arrive at a date using isochron dating, you necessarily accept history. Your respons was completely irrelevant to that answer.

So, again, please explain the underlying idea behind an isochron. Your previous post didn't go into that at all.

edited to add: to give a further hint, by the underlying idea I mean the theoretical framework behind it, not the sampling.

BananaSlug · Mar 9, 2009

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Isochron dating is a common technique of radiometric dating and is applied to date certain events, such as crystallization, metamorphism, shock events, and differentiation of precursor melts, in the history of rocks. Isochron dating can be further separated into mineral isochron dating and whole rock isochron dating; both techniques are applied frequently to date terrestrial and also extraterrestrial rocks (meteorites). The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence are needed. Indeed the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating. This technique can be applied if the daughter element has at least one stable isotope other than the daughter isotope into which the parent nuclide decays.

All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide. Thus, at the moment of crystallization, the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope of the daughter element to that of the non-radiogenic isotope is some value independent of the concentration of the parent. As time goes on, some amount of the parent decays into the radiogenic isotope of the daughter, increasing the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope to that of the daughter. The greater the initial concentration of the parent, the greater the concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope will be at some particular time. Thus, the ratio of the daughter to non-radiogenic isotope will become larger with time, while the ratio of parent to daughter will become smaller. For rocks that start out with a small concentration of the parent, the daughter/non-radiogenic ratio will not change quickly as compared to rocks starting with a large concentration of the parent.

To perform mineral isochron dating, a rock is separated into several different minerals with different ratios between parent and daughter concentrations. For each mineral, the ratios are related by the following equation:
(1) where
D is the initial concentration of the daughter isotope, Di is the concentration of the non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter element (assumed constant), P is the initial concentration of the parent isotope, and ΔPt is the total amount of the parent isotope which has decayed by time t. The proof of (1) amounts to simple algebraic manipulation. It is useful in this form because it exhibits the relationship between quantities that actually exist at present. To wit, P − ΔPt, D + ΔPt and Di respectively correspond to the concentrations of parent, daughter and non-radiogenic isotopes found in the rock at the time of measurement.
The ratios (relative concentration of daughter and non-radiogenic isotopes) and (relative concentration of parent and non-radiogenic isotope) are measured by mass spectrometry and plotted against each other in a three-isotope plot known as an isochron plot. Ratios are used instead of absolute concentrations because mass spectrometers usually measure the former rather than the latter. (See particularly the section on isotope ratio mass spectrometry.)
If all data points lie on a straight line, this line is called an isochron. The better the fit of the data points to a line, the more reliable the resulting age estimate. Since the ratio of the daughter and non-radiogenic isotopes is proportional to the ratio of the parent and non-radiogenic isotopes, the slope of the isochron gets steeper with time. The slope of the isochron, , represents the ratio of daughter to parent as used in standard radiometric dating and is therefore a measure for the age of the rock. The point of intersection (intercept) of the isochron with the y-axis gives the initial ratio of the daughter and non-radiogenic isotopes.
Whole rock isochron dating uses the same ideas but instead of different minerals obtained from one rock uses different types of rocks that are derived from a common reservoir; e.g. the same precursor melt. It is possible to date the differentiation of the precursor melt which then cooled and crystallized into the different types of rocks.
One of the best known isotopic systems for isochron dating is the rubidium-strontium system. Other systems that are used for isochron dating include samarium-neodymium, and uranium-lead. Some isotopic systems based on short living extinct radionuclides such as [SIZE=-1]53[/SIZE]Mn, [SIZE=-1]26[/SIZE]Al, [SIZE=-1]129[/SIZE]I, [SIZE=-1]60[/SIZE]Fe and others are used for isochron dating of events in the early history of the solar system. However, methods using extinct radionuclides give only relative ages and have to be calibrated with radiometric dating techniques based on long living radionuclides like Pb-Pb-dating to give absolute ages.

Application

Isochron dating is useful in the determination of the age of igneous rocks, which have their initial origin in the cooling of liquid magma. It is also useful to determine the time of metamorphism, shock events (such as the consequence of an asteroid impact) and other events depending of the behaviour of the particular isotopic systems under such events.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating

Though radio-isotope dating may show the age of rocks, isochron dating effectively shows the history of rocks.

Well, the KT Boundary is an important falsification for "embedded age". If 65 million year old rock was "embedded" with that age, it was also "embedded" with the iridium-rich, tekkite-filled layer that not only marks the boundary between the dinosaur extinction and the mammalian radiation but shows a cataclismic event in Earth's history (well beyond 6,000 years). You either need to find a way to explain such a geological event or stop using "embedded age".

So, anyone care to explain the KT Boundary? 65million years of "embedded age" rock with a 65 million year layer of iridium, tekkites, and shocked quartz.

Tomk80 · Mar 9, 2009

Thanks Bananaslug.

BananaSlug · Mar 9, 2009

Tomk80 said:
Thanks Bananaslug.

You're welcome! I doubt most of the creationists on this forum would take the time to actually research the things they talk about. I decided I would make it easier for them and bring the research to them!

Sophophile · Mar 9, 2009

gaara4158 said:
You don't seem to get it. This means you lose...

Hi gaara4158.

I appreciate AV1611VET sticking with this discussion to explicate "embedded age" and dig through the details of the concept, in spite of sniping from all sides (me included).

It is only by "getting our hands dirty" with the details that we can honestly claim to be seekers of truth.

Now, it seems to me that in the course of this thread "embedded age" was reduced to a logical contradiction; viz. it means the universe is old and not-old at the same time. This runs afoul of the law of non-contradiction and the principle of explosion, as well as the posited nature of God as truthful and not the author of confusion.

However, "iron sharpens iron". If we are truth-seekers we will not hoot about winners and losers, because by the process of discussion and debate we all benefit by bringing our understanding closer to truth.

Just my 2c.

S.

"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Gen Alpha Dad

BananaSlug is my Hubby

BananaSlug is my Hubby

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Gen Alpha Dad

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Gen Alpha Dad

BananaSlug is my Hubby

Titleless

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Titleless

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency