How old is the world?

[A4C]

Here is a good primer on why the earth is only 6000 years old
http://www.geocities.com/truedino/ch3age.htm

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Here is a good primer on why the earth is only 6000 years old
http://www.geocities.com/truedino/ch3age.htm

you have got to be kidding.

The assumption of a linear decay rate over billions of years is the exact opposite of the creation model. In general decay rates tend to be exponential, very high then falling off rapidly, then gradually slowing down as they approach zero. Radioactive decay appears to be linear however assuming an exponential decay curve would eliminate the old ages calculated.

the assumption of a linear decay rate is the assumption that the weak nuclear force does not change over time.

the rest of this is a confusion of amount and rate.
he is describing a sigmoidal curve and attributing it to rate. but fundamentally it doesn't make any sense at all.

plus what creation model of radioactive decay is he talking about? the only possible "creation model" is the creation with apparent age, which says NOTHING about not linear decay rates only about an absolute discontinuity called creation that can not be penetrated through to an earlier time. however all this does is: 1-introduce all the problems of last thursdayism 2-modifies science to be talking about the apparent age of the universe at the time of creation, so what? God created everything so it all looks point to the same ancient age.

the whole rest of the page is long refutted PRATTs not even done up very well. there are much more interesting YECist sites than this one essay piece of ....


btw
it is almost embarassing that someone who argues as often and as forcefully here as A4C does finds this an interesting essay let alone one to recommend.



.....

 

[A4C]

you have got to be kidding.


the assumption of a linear decay rate is the assumption that the weak nuclear force does not change over time.

Perhaps you could be more honest if you used the whole paragraph including the bold which you seem to have conveniently left out

The assumption of a linear decay rate over billions of years is the exact opposite of the creation model. In general decay rates tend to be exponential, very high then falling off rapidly, then gradually slowing down as they approach zero. Radioactive decay appears to be linear however assuming an exponential decay curve would eliminate the old ages calculated. This would of course eliminate the vast amounts of time which evolution requires. The creation model has radioactive material before the flood inside the earth functioning in a designed manner. The internal meltdown of the earth drastically altered this scenario expunging radioactive elements into the surface layers. The creation model would assume an exponential decay curve under these circumstances.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Perhaps you could be more honest if you used the whole paragraph including the bold which you seem to have conveniently left out

because it(what you quote) has nothing to do with the false claim that the assumption of linear radioactive decay is not part of a "creation model". the author of this short and painfully erronous essay knows zip about physics and shows it off to the whole world.

ok look at this part as well

This would of course eliminate the vast amounts of time which evolution requires. The creation model has radioactive material before the flood inside the earth functioning in a designed manner. The internal meltdown of the earth drastically altered this scenario expunging radioactive elements into the surface layers. The creation model would assume an exponential decay curve under these circumstances.

he is confusing amount of parent material with decay rates.

the essay is really bad. there are lots better YECist essays to point people to. some that actually appear to know something about the physics they expound. as well as ones lots better written.

....

 

[notto]

Here is a good primer on why the earth is only 6000 years old
http://www.geocities.com/truedino/ch3age.htm

Not one of these assumptions is used in carbon dating except that the decay rate has been constant (because that is what ALL available indepenent lines of evidence tells us).
[font=arial, arial, helvetica]1. The rate of formation of carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere has been constant.[/font]

[font=arial, arial, helvetica][/font] [font=arial, arial, helvetica]2. The amount of carbon 14 entering the food chain has been constant.[/font]

[font=arial, arial, helvetica][/font] [font=arial, arial, helvetica]3. The rate of decay from carbon 14 to ordinary carbon has been constant.[/font]

If this is a good primer, why does it present false information in the form of a strawman?

[font=arial, arial, helvetica]The soil which sustains life averages seven to eight inches all over the earth. It has been estimated that it took six to twenty five thousand years to accumulate the top soil. This would imply that life could only have existed in a continuous form within this time period. Again the calculation uses evolutionary assumptions.

This is bunk as well. We have lots of soil in the sedimentary record. The author (as most creationists ) avoids discussing buried soils and what we find there. Egg nests, tree roots, burrows, etc.[/font]

 

[A4C]

he is confusing amount of parent material with decay rates.


....

It is only confusing when you do not consider that the things that get incorrectly dated are those that are pre flood (using post flood criteria)
It is not high science to understand the difference between linear and exponential graphical representations moreso basic calculus

 

[A4C]

Not one of these assumptions is used in carbon dating except that the decay rate has been constant (because that is what ALL available indepenent lines of evidence tells us).
[font=arial, arial, helvetica]1. The rate of formation of carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere has been constant.[/font]

[font=arial, arial, helvetica][/font][font=arial, arial, helvetica]2. The amount of carbon 14 entering the food chain has been constant.[/font]

[font=arial, arial, helvetica][/font][font=arial, arial, helvetica]3. The rate of decay from carbon 14 to ordinary carbon has been constant.[/font]

Perhaps you missed this bit of information.

As we look at these assumptions based on the creation model we can logically and reasonably adjust these older dates to fall within Biblical chronology. In the first assumption a pre-flood solid canopy and stronger magnetic field would reduce the formation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. This would contrast with the post-flood conditions of a clear sky, weaker magnetic field and larger oceans. The post-flood conditions would provide for a greatly increased rate of formation of carbon 14. This leads to the second assumption about the amount of carbon 14 living organisms would absorb. Specimens living before the flood would have a much lower ratio of carbon 14 to ordinary carbon than those which lived after the flood. The assumption that the decay rate has remained constant in view of the internal meltdown of the earth and the worldwide flood is highly questionable. An exponential decay curve would reduce carbon 14 dates considerably.

If this is a good primer, why does it present false information in the form of a strawman?

[font=arial, arial, helvetica]The soil which sustains life averages seven to eight inches all over the earth. It has been estimated that it took six to twenty five thousand years to accumulate the top soil. This would imply that life could only have existed in a continuous form within this time period. Again the calculation uses evolutionary assumptions.

This is bunk as well. We have lots of soil in the sedimentary record. The author (as most creationists ) avoids discussing buried soils and what we find there. Egg nests, tree roots, burrows, etc.[/font]

And where did the "buried soils" come from - The Flood of course

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

And where did the "buried soils" come from - The Flood of course

That must mean that any sedimentary strata below a paleosol must be pre-flood right?

Again, your statement has no credibility until you answer these two questions:

1. Which stratum or sequence of strata in the sedimentary rock record are pre- and post-flood?

2. What scientific evidence indicates that this deposition occurred when you claim?

These paleosols exist stratigraphically throughout the sedimentary rock record including appearing above and below each other separated by a great deal of sediment. This should be impossible if your "explanation" were valid. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about and your "explanation" explains nothing at all. Just saying "flooddidit" has become your catch-all explanation even though you don't even investigate what you are actually trying and failing to explain.

 

[Split Rock]

God is not misleading. He has clearly said what he did. Adam was fully mature and capable of reproducing in the day of his creation. God is not misleading us by creating a being that APPEARS MATURE.

One may assert that God has mislead only by ignoring his plain statements.

There is a vast difference between appearance of maturity (age) and appearance of history. Did God give Adam scars or healed bones from accidents he never had? If not, why would he create the appearance of nebula that look like remnants from supernovae that never happened?

 

[notto]

Perhaps you missed this bit of information.

Nope, the article still develops a strawman of the mainstream method of carbon dating. The assumptions listed are not assumptions of carbon dating. By the way, exponential decay is such a silly concept that only a creationist could come up with it. It is falsified rather easily by both observations here on earth and through astronomy. The heat and affects of this exponential decay are never accounted for in the creationist model. They are ad hoc and don't deal with the affects that would come about or the actual evidence we find.

And just what the heck is the [font=arial, arial, helvetica]internal meltdown of the earth and why would it affect decay? Why wouldn't it affect decay today? Let me guess, the flood did it, right? I must have missed that part of Genesis.[/font]

And where did the "buried soils" come from - The Flood of course

Nope. The flood wouldn't preserve egg nests, burrows, and tree roots and forests. The flood does not explain the evidence. The flood does not explain what we find under, inbetween, and on top of these buried soils.

Regardless, the claim in the article as a 'proof' of a young earth is simply false.

 

[revolutio]

Here is a good primer on why the earth is only 6000 years old
http://www.geocities.com/truedino/ch3age.htm

Regardless of conflicts over how old the Earth may appear, I just spent part of the day reading Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds and I find that laughable. After reading a book which talks about the thousands of proofs for the Big Bang (or whatever the rapid expansion was) and a 14 billion year old universe, to read something talking about a 6000 year old Earth and take it seriously is quite difficult.

 

[Dal M.]

And where did the "buried soils" come from - The Flood of course

It's a neat trick, leaving footprints at the bottom of an extremely turbulent God-manufactured ocean. Nests and layers of pollen, too. How do you suppose that happened?

 

[notto]

It's a neat trick, leaving footprints at the bottom of an extremely turbulent God-manufactured ocean. Nests and layers of pollen, too. How do you suppose that happened?

The flood did it!

 

[A4C]

That must mean that any sedimentary strata below a paleosol must be pre-flood right?

Again, your statement has no credibility until you answer these two questions:

1. Which stratum or sequence of strata in the sedimentary rock record are pre- and post-flood?

2. What scientific evidence indicates that this deposition occurred when you claim?

These paleosols exist stratigraphically throughout the sedimentary rock record including appearing above and below each other separated by a great deal of sediment. This should be impossible if your "explanation" were valid. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about and your "explanation" explains nothing at all. Just saying "flooddidit" has become your catch-all explanation even though you don't even investigate what you are actually trying and failing to explain.

You know you don't actually have a realistic idea about the global flood scenario do you . Are you suggesting that any soil cover that originally covered bedrock actually stayed in its original place . If that was the case where did the sediment come from. Perhaps you should examine the type of devastation that occured in the recent Asian tsusami and extropolate into a global flood (and it's aftermath) to understand the type of devastation that would be expected.

 

[A4C]

Regardless of conflicts over how old the Earth may appear, I just spent part of the day reading Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds and I find that laughable. After reading a book which talks about the thousands of proofs for the Big Bang (or whatever the rapid expansion was) and a 14 billion year old universe, to read something talking about a 6000 year old Earth and take it seriously is quite difficult.

After reading the Bible I get the same reaction when reading about evolution and 14 billion yo universe.

 

[notto]

You know you don't actually have a realistic idea about the global flood scenario do you . Are you suggesting that any soil cover that originally covered bedrock actually stayed in its original place . If that was the case where did the sediment come from. Perhaps you should examine the type of devastation that occured in the recent Asian tsusami and extropolate into a global flood (and it's aftermath) to understand the type of devastation that would be expected.

Did the devastation create 15 foot deep layers of egg nests preserved or 50 feet of beaver burrows on top of one another? Did it preserve termite nests and animal tracks under 50 feet of additional sediment?

Claiming mass devastation doesn't help your theory, it only makes it more unbelievable because of the trace fossils and delicate features we find preserved.

Again, all you are doing is showing that the 'good' source you gave us doesn't address the evidence we do find. Top soil is irrelevent to the age of the earth in either a creationist adhoc explanation or mainstream geology. Geology is saying that mature soil that is once on the surface doesn't necessarily remain there and is covered by additional types of sediment. Your source ignores that and builds another strawman.

Your source is not a 'good' one.

You seem to be unfamiliar with what we find in buried soils and sediment.

 

[f U z ! o N]

Of course the real question most relevant is how old does the Bible say the earth is?

how many more times do i need to tell you THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.

 

[A4C]

Claiming mass devastation doesn't help your theory, it only makes it more unbelievable because of the trace fossils and delicate features we find preserved.

Devastation and delicate features can co -exist it merely means that consideration needs to be given to the circumstances surrounding the event and its location. I am not in a position to give a finite opinion on any scenario but as you know I will express an opinion of possibilities.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You know you don't actually have a realistic idea about the global flood scenario do you .

Actually I do, and that's why there should be no superposition of paleosols separated by a shale formation, sandstone formation, and a limestone formation.

Are you suggesting that any soil cover that originally covered bedrock actually stayed in its original place .

Strawman fallacy.

If that was the case where did the sediment come from.

Ironic you asking me this when you have hundreds of feet of sediment appearing out of nowhere to be deposited over the course of one year. You are the one who should be answering this question, not me.

Perhaps you should examine the type of devastation that occured in the recent Asian tsusami and extropolate into a global flood (and it's aftermath) to understand the type of devastation that would be expected.

Perhaps you should understand that the sedimentary rock record is not only more complicated, but more organized than the results of the tsunami (e.g., what limestone was deposited during this event? None), but I suppose you're just going to latch onto the tsunami just like you did to a sinkhole event to erroneously explain meteorite craters.

You did everything you could to avoid answering my basic questions.

Your continued avoidance drains your credibility and only continues to be an indicator of the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

That creationists cannot answer even those two most basic questions about a global flood reveals how they don't even understand their own model and the only reason it's their explanation is because of an assumption they deem infallible derived from biblical literalism, it's not as if creationists have any evidence whatsoever for this event.

 

[A4C]

how many more times do i need to tell you THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.

Yes it does