Overwhelming Evidence for an Old Earth

[juvenissun]

How would collapsing glacial fronts manage to sort annual pollen variation into the right layers? How do daily and weekly varves end up with volcanic ash layers that match historic eruptions when read as annual varves? Why do varves match the Carbon 14 dating close enough to calibrate it and fit the Carbon 14 calibration from tree rings?

Good questions. I don't know the answer.

However, the evidences you quoted are sufficient conditions, but are not necessary conditions. I don't think all glacial varves match those criteria (or show those features). Even one glacial varve deposit may show different chronology at different locality. Irregular time interval would become more common when the size of sediments in each varve layer varied significantly, i.e. shows an obvious graded bed rather than just a color change.

Sorry, I don't mean to treat you as a geologist. You are good in geology anyway. I am trying to argue that geology is too complicated to specify any particular idea based on one or two pieces of evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

See? You deny the precise ages given by radiometric dating and only accept them as relative dating. Of course they do give us relative dating too, but because we know the precise half lives of the isotope we know the absolute ages too.

No no. You do not know (but I know) what you are talking about. You are only playing the word game. You missed a critical idea. For example, 350 Ma is only a timing mark. It does not really mean 350 million years ago. The 350 Ma is a real number and it can be used for many purposes. But the 350 million years is only a convenient idea. It is an analogy, but is not necessary a truth.

With that said, there is still a critical question. But I am not going to ask it for you.

 

[Jazer]

Because, in the 17th century, an Anglican Archbishop named James Ussher wrote "Annales Veteris Testamenti, a Prima Mundi Origine Deducti" and the Church thought it sounded great and people have bought into it ever since......

I have Ushers book and you can read it on the internet. His books starts out 6,000 years ago and he has nothing to say about what may have happened before that.

 

[Jazer]

Really? Does this mean that you are ready to repent of the wickedness of not believing God's servant Moses about the six day creation of the world

Moses and Peter said a day is 1000 years.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day."--2 Peter 3:8

A Prayer Of Moses the Man of God.
4 For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past,
And like a watch in the night.​

 

[Jazer]

But that stretching (expansion) means that both the 15 billion light yr measurement and the 6,000 yr biblical age of the earth can both be right at the same time. Both are probably reasonably close.

6,000 years ago in the Bible is the same as 6,000 years ago with science. That is when Adam and Eve were in Eden. This is written recorded history and the geneologys in the Bible agree with the evidence we find in DNA.

 

[ghendricks63]

6,000 years ago in the Bible is the same as 6,000 years ago with science. That is when Adam and Eve were in Eden. This is written recorded history and the geneologys in the Bible agree with the evidence we find in DNA.

Can you provide your source for your DNA statement. I would like to read it.

 

[Greg1234]

I have never had a problem with an old earth, I am a YEC by default. What I have never found is a reason that the age of the earth has anything to do with the creation of life on this planet.

I don't think anybody has. I would think that it's used by Darwinists as some kind of fire exit.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think anybody has. I would think that it's used by Darwinists as some kind of fire exit.

Well time isn't enough, you would also need the means. I guess it sounds convincing if there are billions of years rather then millions or thousands. Why I have never really been sure.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Jazer]

Can you provide your source for your DNA statement. I would like to read it.

Could you maybe start in WIKI and we could go from there? The Hebrew Haplogroup is J2(DNA). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA) Most of the research on the J2 is at Jerusalem university. Of course the Cohen Modal Haplotype is the most popular study on the J Haplogroup. Y-chromosomal Aaron Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Assyrian]

Good questions. I don't know the answer.

However, the evidences you quoted are sufficient conditions, but are not necessary conditions.

Is that another way of saying 'science can't prove it'? Because you know as well as I do that science isn't about proof but following the theories that are supported by evidence. And it is the evidence from varves you seem to be trying to ignore.

I don't think all glacial varves match those criteria (or show those features). Even one glacial varve deposit may show different chronology at different locality. Irregular time interval would become more common when the size of sediments in each varve layer varied significantly, i.e. shows an obvious graded bed rather than just a color change.

Sorry, I don't mean to treat you as a geologist. You are good in geology anyway. I am trying to argue that geology is too complicated to specify any particular idea based on one or two pieces of evidence.

I thought when you had irregular layers like that they weren't considered varves because the irregularity was evidence they were the result of storms or flooding, or as you mention melting glacier fronts. You seem to be taking the irregular layers that aren't annual varves to try to ignore the evidence of real varves that are confirmed by multiple different dating techniques.

No no. You do not know (but I know) what you are talking about. You are only playing the word game. You missed a critical idea. For example, 350 Ma is only a timing mark. It does not really mean 350 million years ago. The 350 Ma is a real number and it can be used for many purposes. But the 350 million years is only a convenient idea. It is an analogy, but is not necessary a truth.

With that said, there is still a critical question. But I am not going to ask it for you.

So a half life is just a number, not the actual length of time it take for half of the isotope to decay?

 

[juvenissun]

Is that another way of saying 'science can't prove it'? Because you know as well as I do that science isn't about proof but following the theories that are supported by evidence. And it is the evidence from varves you seem to be trying to ignore.


I thought when you had irregular layers like that they weren't considered varves because the irregularity was evidence they were the result of storms or flooding, or as you mention melting glacier fronts. You seem to be taking the irregular layers that aren't annual varves to try to ignore the evidence of real varves that are confirmed by multiple different dating techniques.


So a half life is just a number, not the actual length of time it take for half of the isotope to decay?

People use glacial varves to argue about old age based on the annual layering. I acknowledged the evidence of annual layering. However, I argue that not all such layerings are annual. That is all it is. I never ignore evidence. But I alway like to find exception. And geology is a paradise of doing that.

The half-life is an experimental number based on the current observation and a theoretical extension. I had a good talk with sfs. Even he gave me some information about the theory, I am still not convinced that it is a real number.

 

[Assyrian]

People use glacial varves to argue about old age based on the annual layering. I acknowledged the evidence of annual layering. However, I argue that not all such layerings are annual. That is all it is. I never ignore evidence. But I alway like to find exception. And geology is a paradise of doing that.

Exactly, you use the exceptions to ignore the evidence. Of course no geologist would deny there are non annual layers as well as varves, it doesn't mean the varves don't tell us the span of years in the sediment. And as I said, you can tell the varves apart because the look different and their dates are confirmed by multiple other dating systems. Are you sure you are not just making excuses

The half-life is an experimental number based on the current observation and a theoretical extension. I had a good talk with sfs. Even he gave me some information about the theory, I am still not convinced that it is a real number.

I thought half life measurements were confirmed by decay rates we observe from long ago in supernova and multi billion year old natural nuclear reactors like Oklo? Are you unconvinced half lives are a real measurement because the evidence isn't there or because you want to ignore the evidence?

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly, you use the exceptions to ignore the evidence. Of course no geologist would deny there are non annual layers as well as varves, it doesn't mean the varves don't tell us the span of years in the sediment. And as I said, you can tell the varves apart because the look different and their dates are confirmed by multiple other dating systems. Are you sure you are not just making excuses


I thought half life measurements were confirmed by decay rates we observe from long ago in supernova and multi billion year old natural nuclear reactors like Oklo? Are you unconvinced half lives are a real measurement because the evidence isn't there or because you want to ignore the evidence?

If I found exceptions, then I will doubt some research results when they did not include the exception into their consideration. So, if someone quoted a research result for an argument, I will raise the exception to argue back. Not I want to ignore the good work. But I just do not trust the person who quoted the result. In particular, with little understanding about the exceptions.

I never ignore good geochronological data. If fact, if the work were carefully done, I accept the result which discovered the time sequence of events. But since the half-life is based on modern observation, I simply do not accept all the numbers as true age. I have never encountered a serious case in which I can not successfully separated these two views. Again, to treat radiometric dates as true ages is an abusive use of the data. All the chronological data are used to make the model of the earth work and reasonable. But, we should not forget, it is still a model.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

All

the chronological data are used to make the model of the earth work and reasonable. But, we should not forget, it is still a model.

As we've seen before, Juvie believes that even though many different the geochronological methods give results that agree with each other and confirm each other, that he still pretends that these date aren't real. It's like saying "yes officer, I know my speedometer and your radar gun both showed that I was going 25 miles/hr over the speed limit, but that's just a model speed, not a real speed, so I don't deserve a ticket!"

THat's also why Juvie thinks that time is just an illusion and that Noah lived with the trilobites back in the precambrian. He does that in his off hours, when he's not telling people here he's a geology professor, even though he isn't.

Juvie, after all your history, I would have hoped you had learned something, and wouldn't be telling people about your "model ages" thing again. But apparently I held too high an opinion of you.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

If I found exceptions, then I will doubt some research results when they did not include the exception into their consideration. So, if someone quoted a research result for an argument, I will raise the exception to argue back. Not I want to ignore the good work. But I just do not trust the person who quoted the result. In particular, with little understanding about the exceptions.

Sound to me like that is exactly what you want to do, ignore good work. If you so called exceptions aren't varves, why should a discussion of varves mention them? If someone quote research on the varves in lake Suigetsu, why should the research mention laminae that aren't varves? I am sure these non annual laminae are discussed in their own papers and they have nothing to do with the dating of varves being confirmed by volcanic ash, pollen and carbon 14. Tell me how you are not just making excuses to ignore realisty here Juv.

I never ignore good geochronological data. If fact, if the work were carefully done, I accept the result which discovered the time sequence of events. But since the half-life is based on modern observation, I simply do not accept all the numbers as true age. I have never encountered a serious case in which I can not successfully separated these two views. Again, to treat radiometric dates as true ages is an abusive use of the data. All the chronological data are used to make the model of the earth work and reasonable. But, we should not forget, it is still a model.

You haven't actually answered my point. Your ability to make excuses is not scientific evidence and as we have seen, you set the bar very very low.

 

[juvenissun]

Sound to me like that is exactly what you want to do, ignore good work. If you so called exceptions aren't varves, why should a discussion of varves mention them? If someone quote research on the varves in lake Suigetsu, why should the research mention laminae that aren't varves? I am sure these non annual laminae are discussed in their own papers and they have nothing to do with the dating of varves being confirmed by volcanic ash, pollen and carbon 14. Tell me how you are not just making excuses to ignore realisty here Juv.

You haven't actually answered my point. Your ability to make excuses is not scientific evidence and as we have seen, you set the bar very very low.

Definition of varve: layered (fine particle) deposit of glacial origin.

There is no need to assign time to this feature.

 

[Jig]

I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth. For example look at the Grand Canyon. Young Earth people say it was carved out in recent history, in the last 13,000 years. Ok, I can accept that, but look at what was carved out. The Grand Canyon is made in layers that obviously took a very long time to be formed. In fact often layers had to be broken down from a solid rock to a very fine partical, so it can be layed down as a layer. Geological evidence shows this earth has been around for a long time. The young earth theory has been shown not to be true for over 100 years now. Often it was Christians trying to show a young earth that discovered that the earth is actually very ancient.

John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Typically when I share my faith with a nonbeliever the first thing that comes up is evolution and science. This generation has been bought up to believe that the Bible's history is not true. Because of this many have not been willing to believe the rest of what the Bible has to say. Just as Jesus said - if people are not going to believe the earthly things then how can I expect anyone to believe the heavenly things?

Overwhelming evidence for an old earth? Sure there is! As long as you interpret all the evidence with a naturalistic and uniformitarianistic philosophy. Creationists are not saying that the world came to be naturally we are saying this happened supernaturally. Of course the Grand Canyon did not occur purely naturally within 10,000 years. It happened both supernaturally and naturally! Did Adam grow to be mature or was he created mature?

Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metaphysical naturalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Assyrian]

Definition of varve: layered (fine particle) deposit of glacial origin.

Google [define:varve ]

Definitions of varve on the Web:

• A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve
• a two-layered deposit in a lake near to a glacial area. During spring and summer meltwater discharge is high and so larger load is carried. If the river enters a lake then this larger, sandy load will be deposited. ...
  www.tuition.com.hk/geography/v.htm
• (Geology) (1) A layer or series of layers of sediment deposited in a body of still water in one year. (2) A regular, annual layer of silt or clay deposited in a glacier-fed lake within one year's time. ...
  www.nalms.org/nalmsnew/glossary.aspx
• A pair of sediment beds deposited by a lake on its floor, typically consisting of a thick, coarse, light-colored bed deposited in the summer and a thin, fine-grained, dark-colored bed deposited in the winter. Varves are most often found in lakes that freeze in the winter. ...
  college.cengage.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/v.html
• A pair of thin sedimentary layers, one relatively coarse-grained and light-colored, and the other relatively fine-grained and dark-colored, formed by deposition on a lake bottom during a period of one year. ...
  imnh.isu.edu/DIGITALATLAS/glossary/letter.asp
• alternating layers of sediment showing yearly cycles.
  www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/Earth-Science-Glossary.id-305499,articleId-57021.html
• varves - Annual clay deposits made by retreating and melting glaciers, used to measure recent geological events; may be used for relative dating.
  www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php
• varves - glaciolacustrine laminations deposited as seasonal couplets (summer and winter); each couplet represents one year, and varve sequences can be used for dating purposes.
  academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/gloss.htm
• varves - Layers of alluvium deposited by retreating glaciers.
  www.nps.gov/history/seac/terms.htm
• varves - A thin sedimentary layer or pair of layers that represent the depositional record of a single year.
  higheredbcs.wiley.com/legacy/college/levin/0471697435/studyguide/ch09.doc

Only the second last makes no mention of them being annual layers and this brief description seems to be from a national parks glossary for school kids.

The first link wiki, gives the history of the definition of varve.

A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.
The word 'varve' is derived from the Swedish word varv whose meanings and connotations include 'revolution', 'in layers', and 'circle'. The term first appeared as Hvarfig lera (varved clay) on the first map produced by the Geological Survey of Sweden in 1862. Initially, varve was used to describe the separate components of annual layers in glacial lake sediments, but at the 1910 Geological Congress, the Swedish geologist Gerard De Geer (1858-1943) proposed a new formal definition where varve described the whole of any annual sedimentary layer. More recently introduced terms such as 'annually laminated' are synonymous with varve.

There is no need to assign time to this feature.

It is nothing to do with 'need' the evidence says they are annual. The only need here is to follow the evidence honestly.

 

[NNSV]

I do not understand how people can believe in a Young Earth when there is Overwhelming evidence for an Old Earth. For example look at the Grand Canyon. Young Earth people say it was carved out in recent history, in the last 13,000 years. Ok, I can accept that, but look at what was carved out. The Grand Canyon is made in layers that obviously took a very long time to be formed. In fact often layers had to be broken down from a solid rock to a very fine partical, so it can be layed down as a layer. Geological evidence shows this earth has been around for a long time. The young earth theory has been shown not to be true for over 100 years now. Often it was Christians trying to show a young earth that discovered that the earth is actually very ancient.

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. (period)"

This was BEFORE a sun, a moon, stars, light, darkness and even the definition of the first "day." The earth is as old as heaven, which means it is age old, immeasurable in time. It existed before time existed, according to Genesis.

 

[juvenissun]

Google [define:varve ]

Definitions of varve on the Web:

• A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve
  ...
  (1858-1943) proposed a new formal definition where varve described the whole of any annual sedimentary layer. More recently introduced terms such as 'annually laminated' are synonymous with varve.
  
  It is nothing to do with 'need' the evidence says they are annual. The only need here is to follow the evidence honestly.

• 
  
  That is why I gave you my definition of it.
  
  The critical content of the word is that it is a rhythmic deposit of glacial origin. Put time restriction like annual or season to it is only asking for trouble. It is also an unnecessary misleading to students.
  
  In the field, one can only see the rhythmic fine grain deposit (which is characteristic enough) and can not identify the timing. So, the definitions you quoted are not practical and will encounter many exceptions.
  
  I don't have time and opportunity to deal with this. Otherwise, I will try to change it.