How Old is the Earth?

[AV1611VET]

When a creatiinist does not know what they are talking about ...

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Psychotic, to boot.

Someone's been listening to COUNT FIVE too much.

Tell me:

When Klebold & Harris went feral, why did academia wonder what made them shoot up Columbine?

Why didn't they just say they did it because:

1. We're animals, and animals can (and do) go feral at times.
2. We're psychotic people, doing psychotic things.

But no.

Whey they could have made a major plug for evolution, instead they sent evolution to the back of the bus to push other reasons that triggered them.

This is one thing I find interesting.

Evolution teaches we're animals.

But when we act like animals, suddenly evolution is filtered out of the equation.

 

[Pommer]

Someone's been listening to COUNT FIVE too much.

Tell me:

When Klebold & Harris went feral, why did academia wonder what made them shoot up Columbine?

Why didn't they just say they did it because:

1. We're animals, and animals can (and do) go feral at times.
2. We're psychotic people, doing psychotic things.

But no.

Whey they could have made a major plug for evolution, instead they sent evolution to the back of the bus to push other reasons that triggered them.

This is one thing I find interesting.

Evolution teaches we're animals.

But when we act like animals, suddenly evolution is filtered out of the equation.

I need not hold an opinion on the nature of your query, therefore do not hold an opinion with regard to your inquiry.
Enjoy your day.

 

[AV1611VET]

I need not hold an opinion on the nature of your query, therefore do not hold an opinion with regard to your inquiry.
Enjoy your day.

What?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What?

It means he doesn't care about your question because it is irrelevant. (And neither do I as it's just another one of your derails.)

 

[AV1611VET]

It means he doesn't care about your question because it is irrelevant. (And neither do I as it's just another one of your derails.)

Meaning you agree that we are all psychotic, but ... but ... shouldn't be using that as THE reason we do bad things?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Meaning you agree that we are all psychotic, but ... but ... shouldn't be using that as THE reason we do bad things?

Meaning, psychosis and Dylann Roof (or who ever it is you're pumping this time) are irrelevant to the age of the Earth and have no business being discussed in a thread about that topic.

 

[sjastro]

The first part of the paper says they can't know the original composition nor what happened during the particles existence... then the rest of the paper is saying what happened during the particles existence.

The entire paper refutes itself... but does it in a way that "scientists " agree with.

Is this the best you can do by making vague assertions without providing examples from the paper.
I'm not going to waste my time in a fishing expedition to work out how you came to this ridiculous conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meaning, psychosis and Dylann Roof (or who ever it is you're pumping this time) ...

Um ... that would be Klebold & Harris I'm referencing.

As stipulated in Post 224, physicist.

... are irrelevant to the age of the Earth and have no business being discussed in a thread about that topic.

But not a peep from you when it was brought up that we are all psychotic?

Well ... I know which side your bread is buttered on, so I'll just consider the source -- physicist.

 

[dwb001]

Is this the best you can do by making vague assertions without providing examples from the paper.
I'm not going to waste my time in a fishing expedition to work out how you came to this ridiculous conclusion.

This was your idea.
You don't want to do the work that you asked me to do... well that is your choice.

 

[partinobodycular]

You don't want to do the work that you asked me to do... well that is your choice.

He provided a link to the paper. He then paraphrased the paper for those who didn't want to actually read it. What more do you expect him to do... chase down every one of your vague assertions based on the few paragraphs of the paper that you actually read, disregarding the rest of the paper that you didn't read, and couldn't understand even if you did.

Me thinks that you expect too much.

 

[sjastro]

He provided a link to the paper. He then paraphrased the paper for those who didn't want to actually read it. What more do you expect him to do... chase down every one of your vague assertions based on the few paragraphs of the paper that you actually read, disregarding the rest of the paper that you didn't read, and couldn't understand even if you did.

Me thinks that you expect too much.

There is a simple explanation as has been pointed out after a similar exchange earlier in this thread, he is a troll.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

How Did Scientists Calculate the Age of Earth?

The examination and analysis of rocks on Earth’s surface, and of extraterrestrial rocks, have enabled scientists to determine the approximate age of the planet.

education.nationalgeographic.org

 

[sjastro]

Found this video of the lead scientist on the study of pre solar grains Philipp Heck giving a talk on the Murchison meteorite in the town of Murchison of all places which is off the beaten track.
It's good to see scientists get out and explain the science in a non technical manner to the general public, which has been limited in the past and has resulted in the spread of misinformation on issues such as climate change.

The subject of pre solar grains starts from around the 11 minute mark of the video.

 

[USincognito]

I would have to have something to work with.
I can not debunk an argument that has not been presented.
Show the experiment and let me poke the holes.

This is the argument.

To use your own terminology prove it.

AIG use circular arguments by assuming from the start the earth is 6,000 years old which is the conclusion then working backwards to dishonestly fit the examples to reach the conclusion which they have already assumed to be true!!

Let’s look at one of the examples given, the earth’s decaying magnetic field which YEC use as proof the earth is 6000 years old.
A decaying magnetic field indicates a magnetic field reversal is in process.
Zircons containing inclusions of magnetite when molten orientate to the magnetic field and when solidified provide a record of the orientation of the field at the time.
In areas such as the Atlantic mid ocean ridge where magma is continuously upwelling resulting in sea floor spreading, a symmetrical record of stripes of magnetic field reversals on either side of the ridge is recorded.

View attachment 335990​

Scientists have calculated there have been 183 reversals in the last 83 million years.
So much for AIG honesty by conveniently ignoring the evidence.

From my post #13.
“Chondrules are commonly dated using ²⁰⁷Pb-²⁰⁶Pb radiometric dating have been confirmed with ¹⁸²Hf-¹⁸²W dating giving consistent results for the age range.”
Verification or confirmation comes in the form of using different dating techniques on meteorites to verify each other’s results.
When it comes to dating earth rocks billions of years old there are a variety of techniques available and it would be an extraordinary coincidence they would all be unreliable to the same degree.

View attachment 335991​

I’m sorry to disappoint you but measurements have disproven a creation age of 6000 years as the oldest earth rocks found have been dated to 4.3 billion years old and meteorites at around 4.54 billion years old.

You claim to know there are holes in the arguments. You're being asked to present the supposed holes in this particular argument.

AIG claims a "weakening" magnetic field shows the earth is young.

That is false because the data from magnetic striping as observed in the mid-Atlantic ridge shows that the magnetic field fluctuated over time and has not been in steady decline and that the magnetic field of the earth has reversed 183 times over the last 83 million years.

Now the ball is in your court to show that the data are faulty.

 

[USincognito]

This actually doesn’t tell us anything without knowing how much radiation it accumulated when it was created 6000 years ago.

It wasn't created 6,000 years ago.

And all this data is irrelevant without having the data that it possessed 6000 years ago when it was created to compare it to.

Fun fact - decay rates aren't dependent on the amount of material present at the time of formation. For instance, the 2.1 billion year old natural nuclear reactor in Gabon was "discovered" when French physicists discovered a minor (.003%) difference in the expected presence of U-235.

Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

Physicist Francis Perrin sat at a nuclearfuel-processing plant down in the south of France, thinking to himself: “This cannot be possible.” It was 1972.

www.iaea.org

Again this is based on theory and not taking into account the mysterious phenomenons that took place during the creation process and how they might have an effect on the decay rate of these molecules. You know it wasn’t long ago people were saying similar things about carbon dating and look where we are now. Since carbon dating was discovered we’ve come to realize that it wasn’t actually as accurate as we originally expected.

Mysterious phenomena are not scientific and cannot be taken seriously by science. The biggest problem with decay rates (apart from the insurmountable heat problem) is if decay rates can fluctuate as wildly as claimed by Creationists, nuclear reactors aren't metaphorical time bombs, but literal ones. If they decay suddenly and significantly changed, it could cause a meltdown.

Since I mentioned the heat problem, the ICR had a team look into radiometric dating and one of their more interesting conclusions was the presence of at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geologic record. If all that decay happened in 6,000 years the oceans would have boiled, If it all happened during the Flood year, when most Creationists think the majority of the geologic record formed, it would have melted the crust of the earth.

Worth noting - radioactive decay isn't the only heat problem.

Is it evidence? Sure, is it proof, no. It seems that people are overlooking the words “theory” “estimate” and “prediction” and are trying to pass these theories as proof rather than evidence.

1. Science doesn't do proof. Proof is the purview of mathematics. Science deals in evidence.
2. You are misusing the term theory. It doesn't mean hunch or guess in a scientific context.
3. The provisional verbiage used by science is correct and necessary as all scientific conclusions are provisional. Even seemingly unassailable ones like heliocentrism or gravity making objects attract.

 

[dwb001]

This is the argument.

You claim to know there are holes in the arguments. You're being asked to present the supposed holes in this particular argument.

AIG claims a "weakening" magnetic field shows the earth is young.

That is false because the data from magnetic striping as observed in the mid-Atlantic ridge shows that the magnetic field fluctuated over time and has not been in steady decline and that the magnetic field of the earth has reversed 183 times over the last 83 million years.

Now the ball is in your court to show that the data are faulty.

Ho do 6ou know that the M8d Atlantic data shows what you believe it does?

Has anyone documented a polarity reverse of the magnetic field?

Ask the questions.

 

[USincognito]

del

 

[dwb001]

I love when YECs use selective skepticism. Y'all don't think twice about getting on an airplane without "just asking questions".

Never. I always ask questions.. look over the plane before boarding.

How do you know the mechanic checked the controls to the aileron?
Did anyone check to see if it was actual jet fuel and not water being pumped into the tanks?
How can we be sure the pilot knows where they're going?

I dont know... but i check what I can.

It's a game and I'm not playing.

You asked.

 

[Astrid]

It wasn't created 6,000 years ago.

Fun fact - decay rates aren't dependent on the amount of material present at the time of formation. For instance, the 2.1 billion year old natural nuclear reactor in Gabon was "discovered" when French physicists discovered a minor (.003%) difference in the expected presence of U-235.

Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

Physicist Francis Perrin sat at a nuclearfuel-processing plant down in the south of France, thinking to himself: “This cannot be possible.” It was 1972.

www.iaea.org

Mysterious phenomena are not scientific and cannot be taken seriously by science. The biggest problem with decay rates (apart from the insurmountable heat problem) is if decay rates can fluctuate as wildly as claimed by Creationists, nuclear reactors aren't metaphorical time bombs, but literal ones. If they decay suddenly and significantly changed, it could cause a meltdown.

Since I mentioned the heat problem, the ICR had a team look into radiometric dating and one of their more interesting conclusions was the presence of at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geologic record. If all that decay happened in 6,000 years the oceans would have boiled, If it all happened during the Flood year, when most Creationists think the majority of the geologic record formed, it would have melted the crust of the earth.

Worth noting - radioactive decay isn't the only heat problem.

1. Science doesn't do proof. Proof is the purview of mathematics. Science deals in evidence.
2. You are misusing the term theory. It doesn't mean hunch or guess in a scientific context.
3. The provisional verbiage used by science is correct and necessary as all scientific conclusions are provisional. Even seemingly unassailable ones like heliocentrism or gravity making objects attract.

You missed #4. Theories are based on facts