How Old is the Earth?

[sjastro]

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.

What a pathetic attempt at backtracking.
This is what you wrote "But I can point out so many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data... I will stick with my position."
In the space of a couple of posts you have gone from knowing about the many faults in the experiment to now claiming ignorance.
Your bluff has been well and truly called.

 

[dwb001]

What a pathetic attempt at backtracking.
This is what you wrote "But I can point out so many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data... I will stick with my position."
In the space of a couple of posts you have gone from knowing about the many faults in the experiment to now claiming ignorance.
Your bluff has been well and truly called.

What are you talking about?
I stick by my earlier statements.
Show me the experiment(your choice) and allow me to poke the holes.
I don't even understand how you get your conclusion from what I posted.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I'm not sure what experiments you're referring to, but how about explaining this please?

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemistry experiment carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth, in order to test the hypothesis of the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Then later, it says:

The reaction was stopped by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, and evaporated to remove impurities.

SOURCE

How did mother nature manipulate all this data on her own and get these impurities removed?

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS are one thing.

THOUGHTLESS PROCESSES are another.

 

[sjastro]

What are you talking about?
I stick by my earlier statements.
Show me the experiment(your choice) and allow me to poke the holes.
I don't even understand how you get your conclusion from what I posted.

There is nothing more to add.
Anyone with half a brain would understand the point I made.
I called your bluff, you failed to support your assertions, end of story.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not sure what experiments you're referring to, but how about explaining this please?



Then later, it says:



SOURCE

How did mother nature manipulate all this data on her own and get these impurities removed?

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS are one thing.

THOUGHTLESS PROCESSES are another.

What are you going on about?

 

[Astrophile]

And a light year is a measure of time ... right?

Wrong. It is a measure of distance.

 

[Halbhh]

What I didn't expect is how many people in the video linked below didn't know how old the earth is. And how far off they were. And I'm wondering how wide spread that lack of knowledge about the earth's age is. I don't know if that picture is due to creative editing or actual lack of knowledge.

As I've sometimes tried to point out, most people never think about the age of the Earth. They have other things on their mind, etc. They could care less about the noise and tumult of the evolution vs YEC debates a very few live for -- it's a tempest in a teapot to them.

I have to admit though, when you tell someone there are about ~200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy, and it's new to them, but nevertheless they seem only mildly interested, and they are not awestruck with wonder at the Milky Way or pulsars or massive black holes at the heart of galaxies, etc....and seem strangely unmoved... well, that's just a different mindset than mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. It is a measure of distance.

And my point went right over your head, didn't it?

Did you see dlamberth's post that I was replying to?

I asked a rhetorical question to make a point.

 

[sjastro]

@dwb001

Since you want to poke holes in an experiment here is one mentioned in post #76.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904573117

I want you point out the experimental errors and false conclusions in the report which you boldly asserted to know even before reading it!!!
Then I want you to contact the authors and ask them if the experiment has been subject to repeatability and reproducibility analysis with other laboratories around the world which is a bedrock fundamental for experimental science.
I have participated in this form of analysis many times over the years.

Let's be realistic here, I'm talking a foreign language to you and best you can do is employ the argument of personal incredulity fallacy because it is beyond your comprehension as well being severely biased as you see science as a threat to your faith.

 

[dlamberth]

Nope. If it were overwhelming the conversation would be over.
The conversation is not over so your science is lacking.

You won't even look at the science presented. End of story.

 

[BeyondET]

Estimated from the ages of the stars and observations and simulations of galaxy formation. Clearly the MW galaxy goes back to the early days of the universe. As for the "initial seed" claim you make, that may not be how it occurred. There is some discussion about the formation of ~10,000 solar mass "stars" that collapse directly to BHs without an explosion. We'll have to see where that goes in the future.


The only solid, independent information we have about the age of our galaxy is from the age of the oldest stars within it. It would be logically impossible to demonstrate that in the manner you claim.

Most certainly it is not. The measurements of the age of the Universe are quite precise at 13.72 years with an error of about 0.01 to 0.02 billion years.

I didn't make a initial seed claim, you mentioned seed not me.

The water on earth is older than the sun thus older that the dryland of earth.

They are not quite precise, the measurements haven't gone back to the beginning of the universe, far from it.

The more is seen of the past the more is revealed like the recently green pea galaxies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't make a initial seed claim, you mentioned seed not me.

I used the term "seed", but I was clearly describing the "first BH" path you described.

The water on earth is older than the sun thus older that the dryland of earth.

The oxygen and hydrogen certainly are, but water is a chemical and the atoms can be swapped with other molecules, so to say that "the water is older" requires some knowledge of the chemical cycles of the Earth that I don't have that can tell me what fraction of Earth's water molecules have been in that unaltered molecular form for billions of years. Further the source of water to the surface of the Earth is still uncertain.

They are not quite precise, the measurements haven't gone back to the beginning of the universe, far from it.

cite your sources. Be less vague.

The more is seen of the past the more is revealed like the recently green pea galaxies.

what?

 

[BeyondET]

I used the term "seed", but I was clearly describing the "first BH" path you described.

The oxygen and hydrogen certainly are, but water is a chemical and the atoms can be swapped with other molecules, so to say that "the water is older" requires some knowledge of the chemical cycles of the Earth that I don't have that can tell me what fraction of Earth's water molecules have been in that unaltered molecular form for billions of years. Further the source of water to the surface of the Earth is still uncertain.

cite your sources. Be less vague.


what?

Where did the water on earth come from has been a long standing mystery. The mystery isn't much of a mystery anymore.

Water h2o is found throughout the universe in various forms, gas solid liquid. There's no such thing as new water, all the water is very old in the universe and constantly changing form.

Young stars start out with all the water for the solar system it needs in a water vapor around it.

Earth's Water Is Officially Older Than the Sun. That's Incredible.

It reshapes our understanding of ... well, everything.

www.popularmechanics.com

What? The latest galaxies recently detected by James Webb.

Very early galaxies dubbed green pea galaxies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where did the water on earth come from has been a long standing mystery. The mystery isn't much of a mystery anymore.

Young stars start out with all the water for the solar system it needs in a water vapor around it.

Earth's Water Is Officially Older Than the Sun. That's Incredible.

It reshapes our understanding of ... well, everything.

www.popularmechanics.com

The "origin of water" question has been "solved" before.

What? The latest galaxies recently detected by James Webb.

Very early galaxies dubbed green pea galaxies.

I know what green pea galaxies are and about galaxies found in JWST images. I just don't know how they fit with your earlier claim which it seems to be about. That one about the age of stars, galaxies, and the Universe that doesn't comport with logic or the data. Instead I get this from you:

The more is seen of the past the more is revealed like the recently green pea galaxies.

which is basically incoherent. How is anyone to make sense of your claims if they are so disordered?

 

[BeyondET]

The "origin of water" question has been "solved" before.

I know what green pea galaxies are and about galaxies found in JWST images. I just don't know how they fit with your earlier claim which it seems to be about. That one about the age of stars, galaxies, and the Universe that doesn't comport with logic or the data. Instead I get this from you:



which is basically incoherent. How is anyone to make sense of your claims if they are so disordered?

You mentioned measurements the current best is the telescope.

Unless James can see the actual big gang if there was one to begin with then the universe is older period.

I will agree the farthest is around 14 billion until a telescope can reach far back in time to the beginning its age is still undetermined. And from the look of things telescopes are still finding galaxies peeking back in time.

The orgin of water has always been in the universe, hydrogen and oxygen have been locked for a very long time.

 

[BeyondET]

which is basically incoherent. How is anyone to make sense of your claims if they are so disordered?

And you grasping for straws, doesn't surprise me.

 

[dwb001]

You won't even look at the science presented. End of story.

None has been presented.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you grasping for straws, doesn't surprise me.

No, your writing is vague, unspecific, and often is not anchored to standard terminology. It is hard to comprehend.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You mentioned measurements the current best is the telescope.

Is this one sentence, two sentences, a few incomplete thoughts.

Unless James can see the actual big gang if there was one to begin with then the universe is older period.

More incoherent statements. Not sure what you are trying to say. (And no one calls the JWST "James".)

I will agree the farthest is around 14 billion until a telescope can reach far back in time to the beginning its age is still undetermined. And from the look of things telescopes are still finding galaxies peeking back in time.

All of those galaxies are less than the age of the Universe. I know of no way in which they could be otherwise.

The orgin of water has always been in the universe, hydrogen and oxygen have been locked for a very long time.

Everything is in the Universe. "Locked"????

 

[Astrid]

No, your writing is vague, unspecific, and often is not anchored to standard terminology. It is hard to comprehend.

In general if a person knows what they are
talking about they can express it clearly.

And they tend not to just toss in inapplicable
cliches