How Old is the Earth?

[Astrid]

Yes it did. So what was your point?

Yes.

So what was the point that you were making?

Post count uber alles

 

[sjastro]

You’re not getting my point, without knowing the state of the material when it was created you can’t determine how old it is. You’re automatically assuming there was no decay when it was created.

No you are the one not getting the point.
Perhaps the maths was beyond you in post #195, but I did state in that post decay times are a statistical process which can vary widely using the discovery of ¹²⁴Xe in a xenon tank as an example which has a half life of 160 trillion years despite the universe being “only” 14 billion years old.

In statistics using grouped data which can form a histogram or probability distribution where the mean x(bar) is defined by the equation;

∑xf is the sum of the product of the measured value x and its frequency f.
∑f is the sum of the frequencies at which f occurs.


In statistics we can create an idealized world where we can measure the decay time t an "infinite" number of times based on the decay equations in post #195 and find outliers that deviate greatly from the mean value such as finding ¹²⁴Xe in our relatively young universe.

Here is the maths for the mean lifetime.
The number of atoms that survive at time t is N(t) and the number that decay between t and t + dt is |dN/dt|dt.
The mean lifetime τ is defined by the equation.

Substituting the equation for radioactive decay.

The mean lifetime τ reduces to.

Given ¹²⁴Xe has a half life of a 160 trillion years makes a 6000 year old earth irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, 4.5 billion years is 4.5 billion years old. Simple math.

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

So what was the point that you were making?

Lamb thinks the universe GREW OLD, whereas I think the universe was CREATED OLD.

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

AGE and OLD can be two different things.

AGE can be a noun, and nouns can be embedded into things.

A nail can be embedded in a wall, an arrow can be embedded in a target, and age can be embedded into the universe (by God).

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Lamb thinks the universe GREW OLD, whereas I think the universe was CREATED OLD.

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

AGE and OLD can be two different things.

AGE can be a noun, and nouns can be embedded into things.

A nail can be embedded in a wall, an arrow can be embedded in a target, and age can be embedded into the universe (by God).

Lots of truth here. Same can be said for Adam and Eve. Though they were only minutes old when God created them, He would have made them to be at very least young adults. Created with an appearance of age

 

[AV1611VET]

Post count uber alles

Says someone who averages 10 posts per day for over two years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lots of truth here. Same can be said for Adam and Eve. Though they were only minutes old when God created them, He would have made them to be at very least young adults.

I call what I believe "Embedded Age Creation," and define it as "maturity without history."

Notice in Genesis 5, everyone's age at death is given.

Genesis 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

Genesis 5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

But with Adam, it's different.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

His age at death is not given.

So if God created Adam as ... say ... a twenty year old man, then Adam died at the age of 950.

 

[Pommer]

I call what I believe "Embedded Age Creation," and define it as "maturity without history."

Notice in Genesis 5, everyone's age at death is given.

Genesis 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

Genesis 5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

But with Adam, it's different.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

His age at death is not given.

So if God created Adam as ... say ... a twenty year old man, then Adam died at the age of 950.

We could guess that Adam was created as a boy…so that when he had had children and they hit puberty, Adam could better explain what was going on with their bodies as the hormones raged throughout their bodies?

 

[partinobodycular]

Lots of truth here. Same can be said for Adam and Eve. Though they were only minutes old when God created them, He would have made them to be at very least young adults. Created with an appearance of age

This leads to an obvious question, did God create Adam and Eve with "Embedded" knowledge and memories? I.E did they have memories of experiences that never actually happened? And if they weren't created with "Embedded" knowledge then wouldn't they have had the intellectual capacity of a newborn infant?

It seems to me that this is a rather important detail, seeing as how they were about to make a decision that would affect every human that would ever exist. If that decision was based upon knowledge and memories "Embedded" in them by God at their creation, isn't God to some degree responsible for that decision, for it was He who "Embedded" them with the knowledge upon which it was based?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No you are the one not getting the point.
Perhaps the maths was beyond you in post #195, but I did state in that post decay times are a statistical process which can vary widely using the discovery of ¹²⁴Xe in a xenon tank as an example which has a half life of 160 trillion years despite the universe being “only” 14 billion years old.

In statistics using grouped data which can form a histogram or probability distribution where the mean x(bar) is defined by the equation;

View attachment 336211

∑xf is the sum of the product of the measured value x and its frequency f.
∑f is the sum of the frequencies at which f occurs.


In statistics we can create an idealized world where we can measure the decay time t an "infinite" number of times based on the decay equations in post #195 and find outliers that deviate greatly from the mean value such as finding ¹²⁴Xe in our relatively young universe.

Here is the maths for the mean lifetime.
The number of atoms that survive at time t is N(t) and the number that decay between t and t + dt is |dN/dt|dt.
The mean lifetime τ is defined by the equation.

View attachment 336212

Substituting the equation for radioactive decay.

View attachment 336217

View attachment 336220

The mean lifetime τ reduces to.

View attachment 336215

Given ¹²⁴Xe has a half life of a 160 trillion years makes a 6000 year old earth irrelevant.

Evidently you don’t get the point at all. Not only is the earth 6000 years old but the entire universe and everything in it. You don’t know how old that material appeared to be when it was created 6000 years ago. And you’re right I don’t understand any of those equations. I’m not afraid or ashamed to admit it but what I do know is that you’re assuming that at some point there was no decay in that material. Can you at least admit that?

 

[dlamberth]

Lamb thinks the universe GREW OLD, whereas I think the universe was CREATED OLD.

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

AGE and OLD can be two different things.

AGE can be a noun, and nouns can be embedded into things.

A nail can be embedded in a wall, an arrow can be embedded in a target, and age can be embedded into the universe (by God).

AV is right that I know the universe as growing old. Aside from the overwhelming evidence of a very old Universe, when putting on my Lover of God hat, the God I pray to is totally honest and upfront in all that He does. It's impossible for Him to be any other way. The idea of God making this Creation look old, but isn't really old, is not honest and upfront in all He does. It's like He has a side show going on. And that's why I reject AV's embedded age argument. It also points to why I pray to a very different God than does AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea of God making this Creation look old, but isn't really old, is not honest and upfront in all He does.

And there's where you make your mistake.

You don't take it far enough.

You think I'm saying it ONLY LOOKS OLD, but really isn't.

Whereas I'm saying it LOOKS OLD, because it IS OLD.

And add to the fact that the earth was in the middle of a cosmic battle between the good angels and the bad angels, and was cursed by God, and went through a global flood, I can't believe you're expecting the earth to look pristine.

It's like He has a side show going on.

No.

And that's why I reject AV's embedded age argument.

You don't have a proper understanding of what my argument is.

It also points to why I pray to a very different God than does AV.

No argument there.

 

[partinobodycular]

You think I'm saying it ONLY LOOKS OLD, but really isn't.

Whereas I'm saying it LOOKS OLD, because it IS OLD.

Now you've really confused me. I thought that I was finally getting a handle on your position, but now I'm completely lost again. Are you saying that the universe is 6k years old or aren't you? If you are then the above statement makes no sense to me.

Please feel free to educate me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m not saying that it decayed at an accelerated rate, I’m saying it could’ve been created with an unknown amount of decay already present in it.

I think you might be a bit confused on this. The decay is not a quantity of stuff, it is a rate. That rate is expressed in the fraction of some isotope that decays within some period of time. So the number of atoms that decay in any year, day, decade, second, etc. is related to the rate and the number of atoms of that isotope that are in something.

For example, suppose the decay rate is 1% per year. Each year, 1% of the atoms of that isotope that were in something will decay and that repeats every year with 1% of the then current number decaying (not 1% of the original number many years before). This is the case if there are 10,000 atoms at the start of the year (then 1% of 10,000 or 100 will decay, leaving 9,900) or 100 billion atoms (with 1% of that number, 1 billion, decaying that year). If somethings has 100 Billion at the start of this year and 1 billion decay this year (1%), it will leave 99 billion at the start of next year, so 1% of 99 billion will decay next year (0.99 Billion) and leave 98.01 billion at the end of next year. And so on and so on.

The number of decays that occur doesn't depend on the number of the "daughter" isotope (the thing it decays *to*) is present, or how long it has been decaying, just how many atoms of that isotope is present now. This is one of the major components in using radioactive decays as a tool to measure ages. Many of the radioactive dating methods (using specific isotopes) do not depend on the initial abundance of the isotope, or can determine that experimentally.

 

[sjastro]

Evidently you don’t get the point at all. Not only is the earth 6000 years old but the entire universe and everything in it. You don’t know how old that material appeared to be when it was created 6000 years ago. And you’re right I don’t understand any of those equations. I’m not afraid or ashamed to admit it but what I do know is that you’re assuming that at some point there was no decay in that material. Can you at least admit that?

If you don't understand the maths then you are no position of making any assumptions.
Perhaps this picture will make thinks clearer using the ¹²⁴Xe example.

​

Radioactive decay is a quantum mechanical process involving probabilities.
You will never get the same half life for all observations but a distribution of results.
The distribution of radioactive decay times follows a Poisson distribution as shown.
The mean half life of 160 trillion years has the highest probability and sits on top of the curve.
The odds of detecting ¹²⁴Xe in our universe is extremely small as shown at the extreme left of the graph, but was discovered in a xenon tank dark matter detector due to the enormous number of Xe atoms found in a ton of liquid xenon.

The point is this, a 4.5 billion year old earth explains why elements such plutonium and neptunium exist in trace quantities as their mean half lives are considerably shorter than the age of the earth and therefore the probability of finding such elements is quite small.
A 6000 year old earth would result in these elements being abundant.

The other point I should make you are employing a characteristic logical fallacy used by YECs that if dating methods are wrong or we don't know what has happened in the past does not lead to the conclusion the earth is 6000 years old.
This is a false dichotomy.

 

[Astrid]

AV is right that I know the universe as growing old. Aside from the overwhelming evidence of a very old Universe, when putting on my Lover of God hat, the God I pray to is totally honest and upfront in all that He does. It's impossible for Him to be any other way. The idea of God making this Creation look old, but isn't really old, is not honest and upfront in all He does. It's like He has a side show going on. And that's why I reject AV's embedded age argument. It also points to why I pray to a very different God than does AV.

Huh.
Too elabourate.
I only have one reason for rejecting Last Thursdayism.

Though there are several different words to express it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you've really confused me. I thought that I was finally getting a handle on your position, but now I'm completely lost again. Are you saying that the universe is 6k years old or aren't you? If you are then the above statement makes no sense to me.

Please feel free to educate me.

QV please:

If he would have asked me that question, I would have replied: "As old as God willed it to be."

Then I would ask him a question: "How long has the earth been in existence?"

See also:

I believe the universe is as old as God willed it to be.

If it's 13.7 billion years old, it's 13.7 billion years old.

But, however old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

I only have one reason for rejecting Last Thursdayism.

I neither believe in Last Thursdayism, nor do I believe in Apparent Age.

I believe in Embedded Age.

There's a difference.

In Apparent Age, it just LOOKS old.

In Embedded Age, it IS old.

 

[dlamberth]

Lamb is confused.

I neither believe in Last Thursdayism, nor do I believe in Apparent Age.

I believe in Embedded Age.

There's a difference.

In Apparent Age, it just LOOKS old.

In Embedded Age, it IS old.

Estid wrote what you replied to, not me. Last Thursdayism are her words.

 

[AV1611VET]

Estid wrote what you replied to, not me. Last Thursdayism are her words.

Sorry, my fault.

I'll correct it.

 

[dlamberth]

Now you've really confused me. I thought that I was finally getting a handle on your position, but now I'm completely lost again. Are you saying that the universe is 6k years old or aren't you? If you are then the above statement makes no sense to me.

Please feel free to educate me.

As I understand it, AV is saying that the Universe is really only 6000 years old. But God embedded age into it such that for instance the Earth is now appearing to be 4.5billion years old... but really it's 6000 years old. It's confusing, I get that. It took me a while to understand. The key is "embedded age" and how AV uses that term.