Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[valkyree]

I don't really understand the reasoning in this post, you have made an assumption (preflood is different to postflood) and now you're using science to back it up, using what I assume to be dinosaurs, you also use fossil fuels. All to make it so that you can have a convoluted and shaky idea. Does anyone else want a razor?

what is your question?

I am using a young earth/global flood paradigm and ancient history and the fossil record

if you use an old earth/slow deposition paradigm it will not make any sense

 

[valkyree]

Oh good!


What are these assumptions, and why are they invalid. Back your claims with evidence, please.


Boy there are a lot of mays and may nots in that sentence. Care to explain why it's so common for a rock that may be dated by several methods to display the same date for each method, when the 'assumptions' involved in each method are so faulty?

read this http://www.fysik.org/website/fragelada/resurser/ageofearth.pdf

THE AGE OF THE EARTH
United States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY​

Branch of Isotope Geology Menlo Park, California

look for the assumptions in the article

i am working on a response to you

 

[SkyWriting]

Here is one from the Joggins Formation in Nova Scotia

What is your interpretation of this photo?
What is with all the layers around the tree trunk?

 

[Keachian]

what is your question?

I am using a young earth/global flood paradigm and ancient history and the fossil record

if you use an old earth/slow deposition paradigm it will not make any sense

Your "paradigm" is convoluted imo and given the choice between the two I have used Occam's Razor to choose the "old earth paradigm"

 

[SkyWriting]

Your "paradigm" is convoluted imo and given the choice between the two I have used Occam's Razor to choose the "old earth paradigm"

Occam's Razor has the same weight as any fortune cookie philosophy.

 

[Keachian]

Occam's Razor has the same weight as any fortune cookie philosophy.

I don't really recognise it as "fortune cookie philosophy" it wasn't found in a fortune cookie

 

[valkyree]

There is no evidence that I am aware of that indicates otherwise. Please feel free to present that evidence now. If the evidence does not exist, explain why we should assume that decay rates DO change rather than rely on the observation that they do not.


?

if we were talking about a few hundred years i would be inclined to agree w you because we have been measuring decay rates and other ''constants'' for about 200 yrs and the slight changes that have been measured over that time frame would not make much difference

when we are talking about 5 billon years the situation changes - slight changes will make much more difference and
assumptions good for 200 years are not necessarily good for 5 billion yrs - old earthers may not be bothered by doing so but...


if enough other evidence exists for a global flood and a younger earth then those who are convinced such evidence is valid have every right to question 5 billion year ages and how they are determined

 

[Incariol]

if enough other evidence exists for a global flood and a younger earth then those who are convinced such evidence is valid have every right to question 5 billion year ages and how they are determined

You haven't cited any evidence yet, though, that I've noticed. The only thing I've seen you post is a link to a "Creationwiki". Which obviously isn't evidence.

 

[valkyree]

Your "paradigm" is convoluted imo and given the choice between the two I have used Occam's Razor to choose the "old earth paradigm"

i doubt you have much idea what my paradigm is

people will usually go with what they are most familiar and comfortable with - it's easier - doesn't mean it's right

 

[valkyree]

You haven't cited any evidence yet, though, that I've noticed. The only thing I've seen you post is a link to a "Creationwiki". Which obviously isn't evidence.

you won't learn a darn thing w an attitude like that

your choice

shrug

 

[Keachian]

i doubt you have much idea what my paradigm is

people will usually go with what they are most familiar and comfortable with - it's easier - doesn't mean it's right

I used to be a YEC and believed much the same as what you are converying, then I opened my mind and started to look at the evidence, there is no reason to accept the convoluted mess of ideas that are contradictory among the beliefs of one YEC, let alone the ideas of every YEC, the simpler and more satisfying explanation is the scientific understanding of how we got here, I have also yet to be given any substantial scriptural evidence for why I should accept YEC on theological grounds.

 

[valkyree]

We understand the closure temperatures of the minerals we date using K-Ar (the temperature at which Ar gas can no longer diffuse through the crystal structure), thus, it is not an assumption, but a requirement that the Ar content of a crystal, once below the closure temperature, can only change via decay of potassium incorporated into the crystal's structure.

?

i guess I'm just not as trusting as you are of a supposedly 4.5 billion year old chunk of lava w some argon gas trapped in a few of it's crystals - the assumptions below and some other problems w the method mentioned at wiki are all not likely to overcome so as to make the age determination indisputable

the youngest lavas on earth such as in Iceland do not take very long to decompose and become full of grass - it happens rather quickly

no changes to pressure or temperature for 4.5 billion years??

no contamination in 4.5 billion years??

closed system for 4.5 billion years??

sample is destroyed in testing and no argon is lost??

not good enough for me

K–Ar dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assumptions







According to McDougal and Harrison (1999, p. 11) the following assumptions must be true for computed dates to be accepted as representing the true age of the rock [4]

• The parent nuclide,
  40​
  
  
  
  
  K, decays at a rate independent of its physical state and is not affected by differences in pressure or temperature. This is a well founded major assumption, common to all dating methods based on radioactive decay. Although changes in the electron capture partial decay constant for
  
  40​
  
  K possibly may occur at high pressures, theoretical calculations indicate that for pressures experienced within a body of the size of the Earth the effects are negligibly small.[1]

• The
  40​
  
  
  
  
  K/K ratio in nature is constant so the
  
  40​
  
  K is rarely measured directly, but is assumed to be 0.0117% of the total potassium. Unless some other process is active at the time of cooling, this is a very good assumption for terrestrial samples.[5]

• The radiogenic argon measured in a sample was produced by in situ decay of
  40​
  
  
  
  
  
  K in the interval since the rock crystallized or was recrystallized. Violations of this assumption are not uncommon. Well-known examples of incorporation of extraneous
  
  40​
  
  
  Ar include chilled glassy deep-sea basalts that have not completely outgassed preexisting
  
  40​
  
  
  Ar*,[6] and the physical contamination of a magma by inclusion of older xenolitic material. The Ar–Ar dating method was developed to measure the presence of extraneous argon.

• Great care is needed to avoid contamination of samples by absorption of nonradiogenic
  40​
  
  
  
  
  
  Ar from the atmosphere. The equation may be corrected by subtracting from the
  
  40​
  
  Armeasured value the amount present in the air where
  
  40​
  
  Ar is 295.5 times more plentiful than
  
  36​
  
  Ar.
  
  40​
  
  
  Ardecayed =
  
  40​
  
  Armeasured − 295.5 ×
  
  36​
  
  Armeasured.

The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of

40​

K or

40​

Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of

40​

K. Departures from this assumption are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history, but such departures can provide useful information that is of value in elucidating thermal histories. A deficiency of

40​

Ar in a sample of a known age can indicate a full or partial melt in the thermal history of the area. Reliability in the dating of a geological feature is increased by sampling disparate areas which have been subjected to slightly different thermal histories.[7]
Both flame photometry and mass spectrometry are destructive tests, so particular care is needed to ensure that the aliquots used are truly representative of the sample. Ar–Ar dating is a similar technique which compares isotopic ratios from the same portion of the sample to avoid this problem.

 

[valkyree]

I used to be a YEC and believed much the same as what you are converying, then I opened my mind and started to look at the evidence, there is no reason to accept the convoluted mess of ideas that are contradictory among the beliefs of one YEC, let alone the ideas of every YEC, the simpler and more satisfying explanation is the scientific understanding of how we got here, I have also yet to be given any substantial scriptural evidence for why I should accept YEC on theological grounds.

I used to be an old earther and went thru much the same process in reverse

weird how that happens

 

[Keachian]

I used to be an old earther and went thru much the same process in reverse

weird how that happens

So tell me, what about "old earth paradigm" is convoluted?

 

[valkyree]

This is false- magnetic reversals are dated to have occurred over long periods of time-- dated with methods that you have yet to prove inaccurate.


Ah, but you have asserted in more than one post that you don't care about the age of the earth, so no big deal here, right?

could have occurred.... - how is a statement like that false? it's not

you are satified w radiometric dating techniques so you accept them

others do not accept what you do and we question them

magnetic reversals could have occurred in rapid succession - yup they could have

i'm not obsessed w the age of the earth - i am more interested in the correct sequence of events - but i see catastrophe where you see some kind of slow plodding that makes no sense to me

 

[pshun2404]

Well to begin (no pun intended), the cycle moves from evening to morning (thus dark to light not light to dark). But in the Hebrew this can also indicate an unformed chaos moving into orderliness. Secondly we have actually discovered the reflection of a primordial “light” that existed before stars and moons...and it is visible at 3 degrees Kelvin everywhere in the entire universe. The math indicates it was present at the alleged Big Bang moment (which would have included sound and this flash of radiation or light) So this explains the “Light”. And God said (here’s the source of the sound waves), “Let there be Light and there was light”, and this was day one (not the same wording as “the first day” which is not in the text). All other repetitions of this cycle are referred to as “the second day”, “the third day”, etc. none of these can be 24 hours because that is a measure based on the revolution of the earth in relation to the Sun and neither exists at this time.

Therefore any of these days, but certainly day one, could be any non-definitive length of time (as in chromos/time). Before this day chronos/time did not even exist (which moves from one point in the past through a present moment into a future)

and directly after “creation moment” there still was no sun of moon so measuring a day is a matter of what that represented to God at that time not man. It is not until after suns, moons, earths, and life, and then mankind, that these represent cycles (at least to created man) that we would measure 24 hour days (notice I said “we” would measure it so).

Now as for the word “yom” translated “day” in Genesis 1 (the Creation story as opposed to Genesis 2 which is the story of formation), it is written elsewhere that a day unto the Lord “is as” 1,000 years unto man. It has been rightly pointed out that 1,000 is often used symbolically in the Bible as an uncountable number. To man at that time this is what the term represented. Ancient Hebrew did not fathom in terms beyond this. This is why the Scriptures do not mention millions or billions but only speaks in 1,000s, 100s of 1,000s, or perhaps, 10,000 x 10,000, etc.! This fact (a Hebraism) led early Rabbis and the earliest Church fathers to reckon the first six days as 6,000 years not six 24 hour days But in all fairness it could have been much longer (even millions or billions of years) or only 6 24 hour days (see “the Age of the Universe” by physicist, Gerald Schroeder) fo God can do what He wills (though does not always).

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press) on the word "day" or yom...

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says...

"from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaining, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole age, (full) year (-ly), younger

So “day” can be a day, or a year, or an age, and even an indefinite length of time. Moses, who wrote the Torah (from the LORD as well as extant sources) uses this word in all these ways. To determine what exactly is meant is discerned from the context remembering God is not absurd nor the God of confusion and from what we can know as fact.

So in Genesis 4:3 Moses writes…"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." So we see here (directly following Genesis1) “yom” (day in Genesis 1) is translated “time” and refers to an entire growing season. 5 times in Genesis Moses uses it to mean an age or a person’s age (Genesis 18:11, 21:2, 21:7, 24:1). In one instance of this application it represents the entire age of Jacob (Genesis 47:28) how ever long he lived. In Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24and 14:23 it represents “always”…(wow! How long is always…?).

Later in 1 Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19 Amos 4:4 and elsewhere the word 'yom' clearly represents a year or even years. In 1 Kings 11:42 it is 40 years. In Genesis 43:9, and Psalm 23:6 it is “for ever”. And lease note: it is not “forever” as some make it…they are separate here. Forever can only last as long as there is an ever, in the Hebrew and the Septuagint this phrase ‘for ever’ (‘ever’, being yom) implies infinity or eternal.

So there are few examples to consider. I hope this has helped.

In Christ
Brother Paul

 

[Keachian]

Paul, how does Gen 1:2 fit into your idea that Gen 1:3 is talking about the big bang?

 

[Keachian]

And that's just my first problem with that post, I'll address it in more detail when I wake up tomorrow morning

 

[pshun2404]

Progmonk

You said..."Paul, how does Gen 1:2 fit into your idea that Gen 1:3 is talking about the big bang?"

I did not say that Genesis 1:3 is talking about big bang but it is apparent that big bang theory without realizing it indicates for me the truth of Scripture...

The creation of this Universe definitely began with a burst of sound and light only how it happened was "And God said" and it was...

So I do not try and make the Bible indicate Big Bang but Big Bang indicates the Bible!

As for "yom" the argument stands that yes God COULD create the whole thing in six 24 hour days (without doubt), but the book does not actually say that, and the various applications by the author indicate it could include much greater lengths of time. So old earth and young earth creationists are on good ground and should agree to disagree in peace not dividing the untity of the Spirit.

I also believe the Bible is the word of God and is true, but I can also believe truth that is not found therein.for ex..the Bible does not say that 2 + 2 = 4 but it is true, so I believe it...

Brother Paul

 

[pjnlsn]

Originally Posted by pjnlsn

You mean, not disallowing that equal parts antimatter and matter were at the event we call the Big Bang? Well, I thought you did have some objection to that, but if not...nvm.

It is said they were. But where did they source from?

Not much is known about the nature of virtual particles, like I said.

What will stay this way?

Empty will remain empty.

Yes. Like I said, this is all merely hypothetical. If it were proven, I could probably answer most of your questions.

This is more like common sense, or epistemology perhaps.

Agreed. But Law as well.

A) Law of conservation of matter
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

B) First law of energy (first law of thermodynamics)
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
dU = dQ - dW
Where dU is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, dQ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and dW is a small amount of work done by the system.

Virtual particles appear to break this law. However, virtual particles are observed, and this law was formulated before we even knew that there was something smaller than subatomic particles. Or even had the means to measure virtual particles and their interaction.

I also don't know how science proves such a thing. Or which law of science you refer to? A law which says, or leads to the conclusion, that there is a seperate kind of reality, etc, etc? Or do you mean all of them...?
I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean

The laws above state that matter and energy is impossible
unless it has a source.

Not quite. They say that the amount of energy remains constant. It appears to need a correction: "The amount of energy in the universe fluctuates up and down by a very small amount."

Of course, there are always more questions, like: "If the universe came from a virtual particle appearence, then why don't similar apperances (of a mass equal to or greater than the universe itself) happen all the time?"

But I don't know. We might some day, but I don't.

The source must be supernatural to avoid the endless question
of "....and what was THAT source?".

I think you're assuming that everything must be known at one time. I, however, am not uncomfortable saying "I don't know."

Faith as in...you believe without proof? So you believe it because.....you believe it? You might be using this word in a different way than I do, but otherwise I'm not sure how to make sense of this bit.

Yes, as in I first believed it based on circumstantial evidence. Like a person would if on a Jury. Based on evidence and testimony of persons who are determined not to be liars. Mostly the latter.

Without specifics, I can't really make a judgement here. But whatever.

"He" put it in writing? Your god, then?

Yes. The scriptures are "God-breathed."
You may define GOD BREATHED most any way you choose.
Good breath, bad breath, words, or "Hot Air" if that's what you feel is correct.

I assume you mean it was inspired by this godly being you believe exists.

So you're saying you know that there's a special sepearate part of reality, set apart from normal reality, because (a it's written in the book and (b it would be odd for someone to write that? Well, I've met a few odd people in my life, and some of them have said some right strange things, sometimes dealing with what would be called the supernatural, sometimes not. But I don't see how the fact that it's odd for a person to say it makes what they said true.

OK. But that's my claim. Some people are insane, some are liars, and some seem to be sane and have no clear investment in the beneficial outcome of their words. Those who are killed because of what they say or write are given special consideration.

Yes, but why is it true? They may have believed it, being neither liars, nor lunatics, but why is it true, not just what they actually believe?

Are you talking about virtual particles? Because I'd like to hear how virtual particles equals a godly being

.
Being eternal, critical, influential, fundamental, invisible, temporal, and hard to understand, they would have some of the aspects of a god. Missing personality for sure. Maybe enough to have a book written about them like this one:
Higgs Boson

Most of these words are vague, and could apply to any number of things. As far as being "hard to understand," that basically applies to most anything we don't know much about. I don't think you could justify claiming that everything not fully understood is connected to some godly being.

If you describe to me a god, with enough precision and detail, I could tell you what would be evidence for it, what would prove it, and what would contradict it. I'm afraid I don't actually what a god is, to be able to say what is evidence for it and what is not.

Do you know?