The measuring device is not reliable.

[visionary]

Age of oldest rocks off by millions of years - space - 29 March 2012 - New Scientist


Scientists have measured samarium-146's half-life – the time taken for exactly half of a sample of atoms to decay radioactively - four times over the past 60 years, and got different answers each time. The two most recent measurements seemed to converge on a half-life of 103 million years, plus or minus 5 million years. But Paul and colleagues suspected that that number wasn't quite right. So they used a technique called accelerator mass spectrometry, which Paul says is less likely to be skewed by experimental errors.

 

[RickG]

Age of oldest rocks off by millions of years - space - 29 March 2012 - New Scientist


Scientists have measured samarium-146's half-life – the time taken for exactly half of a sample of atoms to decay radioactively - four times over the past 60 years, and got different answers each time. The two most recent measurements seemed to converge on a half-life of 103 million years, plus or minus 5 million years. But Paul and colleagues suspected that that number wasn't quite right. So they used a technique called accelerator mass spectrometry, which Paul says is less likely to be skewed by experimental errors.

I don't find that surprising at all. Especially since methods, techniques and instrumentation is much more precise today than it was even 10 to 20 years ago. Simply put, geochemists are getting better and better at what they do. When I was doing graduate work in Earth Science in the mid '70's, geology textbooks were putting the age of the Earth at 4 - 6 billion years. Currently the latest estimates put it at 4.54 billion years +/- 1%. Over the next twenty years or so that figure is more than likely to become more refined than that.

 

[florida2]

In geology, 5 million years is a very short space of time, particularly if you're talking about the age of the Earth.

You seem to want to use this to dispute the age of the Earth, correct? As Rick said, techniques and technology improve all the time so getting different measurements to several decades ago isn't surprising, really.

 

[AV1611VET]

Time is one commodity evolutionists take for granted; just move the decimal place as needed.

No one can prove time has existed for as long as they say it has.

 

[Elendur]

Time is one commodity evolutionists take for granted; just move the decimal place as needed.

No one can prove time has existed for as long as they say it has.

Correct, no one can prove it. But there is evidence for it.

 

[Jazer]

No one can prove time has existed for as long as they say it has.

According to Wiki the Earth's day lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year.
Do you believe that is an accurate figure?

 

[visionary]

According to Wiki the Earth's day lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year.
Do you believe that is an accurate figure?

It was the earth getting larger.. so it takes longer to go around.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct, no one can prove it. But there is evidence for it.

Circular evidence.

 

[Nabobalis]

It was the earth getting larger.. so it takes longer to go around.

The Earth gets larger?

 

[Nabobalis]

Circular evidence.

How so?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to Wiki the Earth's day lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year.
Do you believe that is an accurate figure?

I don't have the foggiest idea, bro.

If scientists say it does, I won't dispute it.

 

[AV1611VET]

How so?

SN1987A is 168,000 light years out; because it takes light 168,000 years to reach us from SN1987A.

 

[Nabobalis]

SN1987A is 168,000 light years out; because it takes light 168,000 years to reach us from SN1987A.

Wait what? You do know that is how you do it. We on the other hand don't.

How do you think they got to that distance?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait what? You do know that is how you do it. We on the other hand don't.

How do you think they got to that distance?

Better yet -- let me restate my point:

Time is one commodity evolutionists take for granted; just move the decimal place as needed.

No one can prove time has existed for as long as they say it has.

 

[Nabobalis]

Better yet -- let me restate my point:

We have evidence that it has. The earth and the universe mainly.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have evidence that it has. The earth and the universe mainly.

Only because you take something that God created and assign it to processes.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Time is one commodity evolutionists take for granted; just move the decimal place as needed.

No, you make it sound like they just make up time. That isn't how it works. The scientists see all sorts of things out there that only make sense with a lot of time available. Big thick deposits of shales that take a LONG time to settle out of water, layered, banded formation like the Morrison Formation that shows "lake varves" (each couplet of layers representing a year) all of which looks like stuff we see forming today. So they kinda know how long it would take to make some of these features.

On top of that there's radioactive decay. Even with the possibility of up to 2% error on the Samarium clock mentioned earlier there's still a lot of radiometric data from different isotopes which decay at different rates that show old ages.

No one can prove time has existed for as long as they say it has.

This is an absurdist kind of statement. You doing "dada" now? How does one prove time existed for a specific length of time?

With talk like this people are likely to start screaming "Last Thursday" at you and we know how you hate that.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Only because you take something that God created and assign it to processes.

This is another dada-esque statement.

What do you mean "assign it to processes"?

 

[AV1611VET]

With talk like this people are likely to start screaming "Last Thursday" at you and we know how you hate that.

You're kinda new in this part of CF, aren't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean "assign it to processes"?

You see something old, and you think it grew that old; as opposed to being created that old.