- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,271
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I didn't. I said that the rock dates to 10,484,570+2015 and the lava is >10,484,570+2015. Notice the greater than sign.
You're assuming the earth has gone around the sun that many times, and adjusting your description accordingly.
I didn't mention anything about the passage of time in my OP.
Hey, brother. Do you know this is a graduate level geochronology question?
There IS a way to evaluate it. But I don't think anyone in this forum can appreciate it. The "story" could be a little bit long.
We don't assume that. We conclude that from the evidence, such as the radiometric dates of rocks.
Radiometric dating measures the passage of time in rocks.
Ah, yes -- evidence.
Now I understand his error.
At what rate of speed?
>10,484,570+2015 years old.
Okay, so 10,486,585-year-old lava produced a 10,484,570 year old lava rock.
If so, then age-embedded lava produced age-embedded lava rocks.
Using facts to arrive at conclusions is an error?
The same rate as now. If time were moving faster in the past then incoming starlight would be blueshifted.
The rock would have dated to 0 years when it formed 10,484,570+2015 years ago.
If a volcano in 4000 BC spewed 30,000,000-year old lava into the sky, which fell to earth and cooled as 30,000,000-year old rocks, then those rocks only went around the sun 6015 times.
They would cool as 0 year old rocks.
Obviously not, if you're finding 30,000,000-year old lava rocks.
We are finding 30 million year old rocks because they formed 30 million years ago.
I disagree.
As discussed, radiometric dating measures the time that has passed since the rock solidified from molten lava.
And let me guess:
Light from SN1987A measures how much time has passed since it left SN1987A in 165,985 BC?
... decay rates from 165k years ago ...
I thought SN1987A was 168,000 light years out?
I was using a round number. I could use 168k if you like.
Light from SN1987A measures how much time has passed since it left SN1987A in 165,985 BC?
We can also observe the decay of isotopes in the aftermath of the supernova, and those decay rates from 165k years ago match the decay rates we see today on the Earth, so decay rates have been the same for at least that many years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?