Old Earth Geology Part 1 and Part 2

[bhsmte]

Wrong question leads to biased thought.
Geologically, it is not likely to be formed in such a short period of time.
But, how is this related to God and creation? Is that what you are asking?

Your judgment on questions is bias.

 

[bhsmte]

What do they say?

They don't say rocks are alive.

 

[Ophiolite]

If so, I am not a YEC.

In that case, and given your ignorance of the term and its ramifications, it might well be beneficial for you to acquire some knowledge of the arguments and beliefs of YECs before engaging in a thread that directly challenges and refutes those beliefs.

 

[46AND2]

In that case, and given your ignorance of the term and its ramifications, it might well be beneficial for you to acquire some knowledge of the arguments and beliefs of YECs before engaging in a thread that directly challenges and refutes those beliefs.

He's a middle aged earth creationist...something on the order of a million to a few million years, by our best estimate...he's incredibly reticent to place even a ballpark figure on it...that way, he won't have to support it.

 

[juvenissun]

He's a middle aged earth creationist...something on the order of a million to a few million years, by our best estimate...he's incredibly reticent to place even a ballpark figure on it...that way, he won't have to support it.

My ONLY point is: The model of a 4.6 B.Y. old earth is not true.
You may not be able to appreciate the consequence of this point. But it is critical to many other concepts.

 

[bhsmte]

My ONLY point is: The model of a 4.6 B.Y. old earth is not true.
You may not be able to appreciate the consequence of this point. But it is critical to many other concepts.

What concepts would those be?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My ONLY point is: The model of a 4.6 B.Y. old earth is not true.
You may not be able to appreciate the consequence of this point. But it is critical to many other concepts.

Except that you have never once shown the claim that the Earth is not 4.6 billion years old to be true.

 

[juvenissun]

What concepts would those be?

This is one of the best reply I have read from you in recent years. Thank you for asking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is one of the best reply I have read from you in recent years. Thank you for asking.

... Well?

 

[bhsmte]

This is one of the best reply I have read from you in recent years. Thank you for asking.

Well thank you and i must say it is a typical response for you.

Those concepts are what again?

 

[46AND2]

Well thank you and i must say it is a typical response for you.

Those concepts are what again?

He's talking about when we date any old rock, it won't tell us the age of the earth....but then, we knew that already.

 

[juvenissun]

Well thank you and i must say it is a typical response for you.

Those concepts are what again?

For example, the one you should have known well: the theory of evolution. What would it be if the earth is NOT 4.6 B.Y. old? If you think it would be the same, then I will just let you happily think it that way.

 

[juvenissun]

He's talking about when we date any old rock, it won't tell us the age of the earth....but then, we knew that already.

No no. "it won't tell us the age of the" rock.

Thank you for remembering part of what I have argued.

 

[46AND2]

No no. "it won't tell us the age of the" rock.

Thank you for remembering part of what I have argued.

Sure it will...apart from thermal events in the interim. Will it tell you the age of the material of which the rock consists? No, of course not. But it will tell you the last time that rock was molten...you know, the last time it WASN'T rock.

However, it will tell you the age of the mineral within the rock, as it formed when that lava event cooled.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure it will...apart from thermal events in the interim. Will it tell you the age of the material of which the rock consists? No, of course not. But it will tell you the last time that rock was molten...you know, the last time it WASN'T rock.

However, it will tell you the age of the mineral within the rock, as it formed when that lava event cooled.

The interpretation of a rock "age" is difficult, but is not impossible. However, that is not what I am saying. I mean whatever "age" we can identify, it will NOT be the true age of that "thing". Put that in plain English: radiometric dating does not give true age.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For example, the one you should have known well: the theory of evolution. What would it be if the earth is NOT 4.6 B.Y. old? If you think it would be the same, then I will just let you happily think it that way.

First you have to show that the Earth isn't 4.6 billion years old.

 

[46AND2]

The interpretation of a rock "age" is difficult, but is not impossible. However, that is not what I am saying. I mean whatever "age" we can identify, it will NOT be the true age of that "thing". Put that in plain English: radiometric dating does not give true age.

It is the amount of time which has passed since the closure temp has been reached for the particular mineral being tested.

If you don't want to call that it's age, fine. It's basically just arguing semantics over the definition of when a rock is formed.

And yes, I understand that it becomes ambiguous as it reaches its closure temp. But that is such a small amount of time compared to the rock's existence, it is statistically insignificsnt and well inside the error tolerances.

 

[juvenissun]

It is the amount of time which has passed since the closure temp has been reached for the particular mineral being tested.

If you don't want to call that it's age, fine. It's basically just arguing semantics over the definition of when a rock is formed.

And yes, I understand that it becomes ambiguous as it reaches its closure temp. But that is such a small amount of time compared to the rock's existence, it is statistically insignificsnt and well inside the error tolerances.

No. Closure temperature is a small potato in this argument. Negligible.

 

[46AND2]

No. Closure temperature is a small potato in this argument. Negligible.

That's what I just said.

 

[Ophiolite]

For example, the one you should have known well: the theory of evolution. What would it be if the earth is NOT 4.6 B.Y. old? If you think it would be the same, then I will just let you happily think it that way.

This argument of yours is irrelevant.

If the Earth was significantly younger than 4.6 billion years and the biosphere was much as it is today, then obviously the mechanisms and their implimentation would have to be different. But that is a hypothetical and science prefers to deal in realities: the Earth is not significantly younger, so your "objection" is meaningless.