How Old is the Earth?

[Pommer]

I don't see anything that is proof of age.
So some numbers are on a page in a report... not proof of anything in my book.

Good thing you have a Bible which has numbers in it to tell you the age of the earth.
Huh?

 

[dwb001]

Good thing you have a Bible which has numbers in it to tell you the age of the earth.
Huh?

Eye witness testimony helps very much, yes.

 

[Pommer]

The Father Elohim and Yahshua, Yeshua, Jesus
both shared eternal glory without beginning long (forever without measure)
before the world, the universe, sun, moon, stars
or man
was created.

He might have never created anything and still have been God, too bad He didn’t so choose and now we’re here fighting over things that we might not be able to definitively answer.

 

[Pommer]

Why would an omniscient, omnipotent God create a world full of irrational people, and then ask those very same people to make a rational choice to believe in Him?

If you want people to make a rational choice then don't make them irrational... duh

Indeed, or imbue them with “free-will” that they are not allowed to “use”.

 

[dwb001]

He might have never created anything and still have been God, too bad He didn’t so choose and now we’re here fighting over things that we might not be able to definitively answer.

So you prefer non-existence to serving God.

 

[Pommer]

So you prefer non-existence to serving God.

How would one tell the difference!?

 

[dwb001]

How would one tell the difference!?

Ahhh... I forgot who I was talking to.

 

[Pommer]

The premise of the question is immaterial to how we run our day-to-day lives, there are people who sincerely believe that Earth is ~6000 years old, And they are folks who think that 4.5 Billion years is “closer”.
But it doesn’t ultimately matter of we’re just trying to make it through the 20,000-30,000 days that we’ve be “allotted”, does it?

 

[Pommer]

Ahhh... I forgot who I was talking to.

Meaning?

 

[dwb001]

Meaning?

I was applying a set of ethics that my opposite does not necessarily subscribe to.
Different motivations require different tactics.

 

[Pommer]

I was applying a set of ethics that my opposite does not necessarily subscribe to.
Different motivations require different tactics.

Enjoy being “right”, I’m sure that that is very important to you.

 

[dwb001]

Enjoy being “right”, I’m sure that that is very important to you.

Ok... should not being correct be important to everyone?

 

[sjastro]

Every one of those is verifiable with experimtation and disproves some aspect of old Earth theory.

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.

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

If your side can not provide an experimentaly verifiable age of exactly some old age then your side is in error.

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.

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.

 

[partinobodycular]

Ok... should not being correct be important to everyone?

Sometimes people prefer the appearance of being correct, more than the indignity of being honest.

They seem to forget the overwhelming value of the words... "I don't know".

 

[dwb001]

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.

And as I don't have the qualifications to argue the scientific details... I won't.
But I can point out so many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data... I will stick with my position.

 

[dwb001]

Sometimes people prefer the appearance of being correct, more than the indignity of being honest.

They seem to forget the overwhelming value of the words... "I don't know".

I don't know about that.

 

[sjastro]

And as I don't have the qualifications to argue the scientific details... I won't.
But I can point out so many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data... I will stick with my position.

I'm calling your bluff point out the faults in the experiments and the interpretation of the data.

 

[dwb001]

I'm calling your bluff point out the faults in the experiments and the interpretation of the data.

Well show me one.

 

[sjastro]

Well show me one.

Now you are not making sense.
You made the bold claim you can find many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data, its called the burden of proof and it's squarely on your shoulders to support your assertions.

 

[dwb001]

Now you are not making sense.
You made the bold claim you can find many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data, its called the burden of proof and it's squarely on your shoulders to support your assertions.

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.