My "Embedded Age" Challenge

[Mike Elphick]

Using the solubility of iron and silica in water, I previously showed how this was a physical impossibility, but AV repeats it just the same.

You're worried about physical impossibilities on an earth that is being shaped and molded by an omnipotent Creator?

Sea water contains almost every element on the Periodic Table --- (if not every element). So when it was time to command the dry land to appear, all the elements had to do was come together into the right configuration, and land would appear. This is known as creatio ex materia.

Look at the figures. Not even an all powerful creator can claim that it's 'sea' water if it contains 319 kg silicon per litre water!

 

[AV1611VET]

Look at the figures. Not even an all powerful creator can claim that it's 'sea' water if it contains 319 kg silicon per litre water!

I don't really understand what you're saying, Mike?

Did you see my rendition of Terra Aqua?

What if that thing was the size of Jupiter?

Would your calculations fit then?

 

[Mike Elphick]

What if that thing was the size of Jupiter?

You're changing the goalposts. You never claimed before that the Earth was any larger that it is now, except for loss of water into the firmament. If the excess mass of Jupiter over that of Earth had to go up there you, where did it go when the 'canopy' disappeared? Previously you wrote:-

4. The land was dissolved in the water --- right down to the atomic level. When the time came, God called the land forth, and the atoms assembled into one giant landmass called Eden (or Pangaea). As the elements came together the earth would not have needed expand, as nothing is being added. In fact, the diameter of the earth decreased when God sheared off a layer of water and ballooned it out into space to become what we call a water canopy.​

(My emphasis).

Would your calculations fit then?

Yes. Although Jupiter has a mass 318 times that of Earth, silicon dioxide has a water solubility of just 0.12 g/L, ten thousand times less than required.

Try again.

 

[BananaSlug]

It is 2 million years old physically, and <6014 years old existentially.

So how could a fossil be 2 million years old physically? That would imply a false history, something "embedded age" claims it is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how could a fossil be 2 million years old physically? That would imply a false history, something "embedded age" claims it is not.

I'm not convinced they are:

Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.

SOURCE

 

[BananaSlug]

I'm not convinced they are:


SOURCE

Then why go along with the 4.5 billion year old earth? Why not just say the earth is just ~6,000 years old and all of the methods used to date it are wrong?

 

[Doveaman]

Is that the same Hubble Telescope from a different angle?

 

[BananaSlug]

Is that the same Hubble Telescope from a different angle?

HAL 9000. From the greatest sci-fi movie ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why go along with the 4.5 billion year old earth? Why not just say the earth is just ~6,000 years old and all of the methods used to date it are wrong?

Like I say, I'm half a pixel away from being a YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

HAL 9000. From the greatest sci-fi movie ever.

Which one: 2001 or 2010?

(HAL is IBM one letter down.)

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not convinced they are:


SOURCE

WOW... you are now getting your information from Pravda?? Have they ever reported anything other than propaganda? Are you kidding me??????

Here is a facinating snippet from the link you provided:

"For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living."

Anyone see any problems with this junk reporting?

1. The cited references are how old? 1963 and 1972... how about some from 1924?
2. The "huge discrepancies" claimed are false.
Here is an example from Wikipedia: Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nevertheless, ancient Archaean lead ores of galena have been used to date the formation of Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.[28]

Statistics for several meteorites that have undergone isochron dating are as follows:[29]

1) St. Severin (ordinary chondrite) a. Pb-Pb isochron - 4.543 +/- 0.019 GY b. Sm-Nd isochron - 4.55 +/- 0.33 GY c. Rb-Sr isochron - 4.51 +/- 0.15 GY d. Re-Os isochron - 4.68 +/- 0.15 GY

2) Juvinas (basaltic achondrite) a. Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.556 +/- 0.012 GY b. Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.540 +/- 0.001 GY c. Sm-Nd isochron ..... 4.56 +/- 0.08 GY d. Rb-Sr isochron ..... 4.50 +/- 0.07 GY

3) Allende (carbonaceous chondrite) a. Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.553 +/- 0.004 GY b. Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.52 +/- 0.02 GY c. Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.55 +/- 0.03 GY d. Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.56 +/- 0.05 GY

3. C-14 is indeed only used on samples less than 60,000 years old. That's why geologists use other methods for older samples!

And another one:
"Furthermore, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves."

Any problems with this junk-reporting?

1. Do geologists really believe that the lowest layers only contain simple organisms while the higher layers contain only complex organisms? Of course not! Bacteria are found through out the geological column! The problem for Pravda and creationists that cite Pravda is that only simple life forms are found in the lowest and oldest layers.

2. No geologists assumes that more complex fossils indicates a younger age for the rock they are in (see above, as simple organisms are found everywhere). While, Index fossils are used to get an approximate date for certain strata, this has nothing to do with "assumptions." In fact, index fossils were used before evolution was accepted by biologists (not something that most geologists care about anyway) because certain strata are associated with specific species of fossil organisms. They didn't know why before evolution, but now we understand why because of evolution. Again, these are very specific species, and it has nothing to do with their complexity. And what the heck is an "evolutionary geologist" anyway?

Pravda should stick to this type of hard-nose reporting: http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/fashion-1043/

 

[BananaSlug]

I was too lazy to criticize it. Thanks Split Rock!

 

[AV1611VET]

So how could a fossil be 2 million years old physically? That would imply a false history, something "embedded age" claims it is not.

That is correct.

Embedded age ≠ false history.

Embedded age = maturity without history.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A 6 year old necro! Why? Why AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

A 6 year old necro! Why? Why AV?

I couldn't find a 7 year old one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I couldn't find a 7 year old one.

But why just necro a thread at all?

 

[Astrophile]

For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

In fact, it was mantle xenoliths in the lava that were dated up to three billion years old. The lava itself yielded a K-Ar age of zero. Creationists really ought to read the original paper (as I have done) rather than relying on creationist sources.

 

[lesliedellow]

Because embedded age caters to the current conclusion -- not the method it was arrived at.

In other words, the number itself, be it 4.57 billion or 13.7 billion, is supplied by the scientists, and embedded agers just agree with it on principle.

If tomorrow, someone says the earth is only 1 billion years old -- then tomorrow I'll be saying God embedded 1 billion years into the earth.

If the very next day, they say they were wrong and the earth is really 50 billion years -- then the very next day I will be saying God embedded 50 billion years into the earth.

You will say just about anything, in other words. Just so long as it doesn't make the acquaintance of reality.

 

[RickG]

"Embedded Age" is the scenario where God created the Earth in a state of "maturity without history". In other words, the Earth is physically ~4.5 billion years old without 4.5 billion years of history. Existentially, the Earth is ~6100 years old, so there is ~6100 years of history.

Well, since this thread is pulled from the depths of Hades from some 6 years past I think it may be fruitful to revisit the OP.
I disagree with the idea that it is embedded age without history. In fact, the part that would be Embedded would be just that, HISTORY (Earth History).

Age (chronology) is not only history, but there is an extensive physical record of past climates, oceans, tectonics, magnetic reversals, erosion, sedimentation, orogeney, and polar wandering. In addition we see a fossil record of historical evolution. Thus history is also embedded.

 

[AV1611VET]

Age (chronology) is not only history, but there is an extensive physical record of past climates, oceans, tectonics, magnetic reversals, erosion, sedimentation, orogeney, and polar wandering. In addition we see a fossil record of historical evolution. Thus history is also embedded.

You're seeing shadows, is what you're seeing.

You would probably look at Adam and conclude he was about 20 or 30 years old.

Then, having done so, conclude "logically" that the earth is at least 20 or 30 years old as well.

After all, if Adam is 20 or 30, then the earth has to be at least that old as well; else where did he live all those years?

And, of course, your "logic" would be leading you to the wrong conclusion.