toldailytopic: How old is the earth?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
alwight
New member
Unlike you and possibly genuineoriginal I credit scientists for having ability, knowledge and a reasonable common sense in what they profess to be expert in. Perhaps I'm wrong but without presenting your own theory based on evidence you are surely not going to persuade me of a thing by presuming that what seems to be constant now perhaps, might, could, have been different back then, which in your opinion is only a million years or so which is nothing in geological time as I understand it.
I rather think it's taken quite a while for you to even accept the period of time you do now, I feel if you could find a way for it to be conceivably only 6000 years you probaly would take it. But astrophysics, genetics, geology, light from other galaxies says you're wrong, what exactly says you're right?:think:
The following is my assessment after watching the potholer54 video.
Carbon dating accurately measure ages of young objects. it does show the geological column is in the right order but not the ages given to it.
All dating based on radioactive decay will correctly measure relative ages( what is older or younger than another). This does not mean the absolute age given is even in the ballpark though. All the ages can be in the right order but still magnitudes of order greater than reality. The DNA method shows man coming out of africa 50,000 years ago and is said to match radiometric ages. Match within less than 500 years? If so, you have something; if not, you haven't shown anything. All this does is confirm that more recent the actual age, the more accurate the C14 or other methods are. If the earth is one million years old and the decay rate has been decaying assymptotically ever since then, the rate will be very close to today's rates for objects measured that are 50,000 years old. As for the paleomagnetic dating, they state the earth's magnetic field flips every 250,000 years. Other than radiometrically dating the layers that have flipped, how do they know it flips at that rate? If there is no corroborating evidence for that, it is circular reasoning. He goes on to discuss other radiometric methods such as potassium argon, but what does this prove? All dating methods are based on radioactive decay. If decay was accelerated in the past, all radioactive elements would all be accelerated by the same amount. They would all give similar ages for the same rocks. So far, no convincing evidence for the accuracy of the absolute age of billions of years. Of course the rate at which continents moves gives us a date that matches the radiometric evidence. Those continents moved faster when the decay rate was faster and slower when the decay rate was slower. Why? Because, a faster decay rate means more heat generated and more heat generated makes for a more fluid athenosphere which makes for faster continental movement.He states that climatic bands in the sedimentary rocks match with the wobble of the earth. I have seen where this really isn't true, at least for the green river formation. If they really do have a match somewhere else in the world, I would be glad to see it. A yearly deposition of layers that can vary widely from year to year is a much more reasonable interpretation of the sedimentary layers.
Carbon dating accurately measure ages of young objects. it does show the geological column is in the right order but not the ages given to it.
All dating based on radioactive decay will correctly measure relative ages( what is older or younger than another). This does not mean the absolute age given is even in the ballpark though. All the ages can be in the right order but still magnitudes of order greater than reality. The DNA method shows man coming out of africa 50,000 years ago and is said to match radiometric ages. Match within less than 500 years? If so, you have something; if not, you haven't shown anything. All this does is confirm that more recent the actual age, the more accurate the C14 or other methods are. If the earth is one million years old and the decay rate has been decaying assymptotically ever since then, the rate will be very close to today's rates for objects measured that are 50,000 years old. As for the paleomagnetic dating, they state the earth's magnetic field flips every 250,000 years. Other than radiometrically dating the layers that have flipped, how do they know it flips at that rate? If there is no corroborating evidence for that, it is circular reasoning. He goes on to discuss other radiometric methods such as potassium argon, but what does this prove? All dating methods are based on radioactive decay. If decay was accelerated in the past, all radioactive elements would all be accelerated by the same amount. They would all give similar ages for the same rocks. So far, no convincing evidence for the accuracy of the absolute age of billions of years. Of course the rate at which continents moves gives us a date that matches the radiometric evidence. Those continents moved faster when the decay rate was faster and slower when the decay rate was slower. Why? Because, a faster decay rate means more heat generated and more heat generated makes for a more fluid athenosphere which makes for faster continental movement.He states that climatic bands in the sedimentary rocks match with the wobble of the earth. I have seen where this really isn't true, at least for the green river formation. If they really do have a match somewhere else in the world, I would be glad to see it. A yearly deposition of layers that can vary widely from year to year is a much more reasonable interpretation of the sedimentary layers.
Four O'Clock
New member
I'm a Christian but I'm pretty convinced that the earth is older than 6,015 years.
IMO the Bible is VERY historically accurate. I always cite the book of Acts as compelling evidence among much of the Old Testament writings.
But I have a hard time swallowing the literal interpretations of many on board here that Adam/Eve/Abraham/Moses, etc...had to watch themselves leaving their homes in the morning so as not to get squashed by a T-Rex or a Triceratops....
Perhaps the billions theory needs to be looked at...
But millions of years may have some validity.
"The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways"
IMO the Bible is VERY historically accurate. I always cite the book of Acts as compelling evidence among much of the Old Testament writings.
But I have a hard time swallowing the literal interpretations of many on board here that Adam/Eve/Abraham/Moses, etc...had to watch themselves leaving their homes in the morning so as not to get squashed by a T-Rex or a Triceratops....
Perhaps the billions theory needs to be looked at...
But millions of years may have some validity.
"The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways"
genuineoriginal
New member
The data seen is the same, but it is the preconceptions that lead to it being interpreted differently, just like the words in our posts.
I credit scientists with having a worldview that affects their ability to interpret the data in any matter that disagrees with the worldview they hold.
Not millions but hundreds of thousand is more likely. Otherwise, very true.
I have one line of compelling evidence that says it is less than 1.2 billion years old.
WizardofOz
New member
I have one line of compelling evidence that says it is less than 1.2 billion years old.
I guess we're both in luck
So that would mean then that scientists and me are all a bit thick?
While otoh most YEC however are free to believe in a literal Genesis version of creation happily unencumbered by any annoying inconvenient real world facts and evidence.
Ya beat me to it, go.
Just because someone deludes themselves does not mean they are thick, it only means they ignore any evidence that refutes their beliefs and they demand that their evidence supports them when it doesn't necessarily do so.
However, the fact that you came up with that question based on genuineoriginal's post does show that you are thick, alwight.
Or a brontosaurus... oh, wait, those didn't exist. :think:
:listen
sst... neither did triceratops, technically speaking.
How Long Would It Take the Moon to Recede from Earth to Its Present Position?
"...if the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, it would move to its present position in only 1.2 billion years. Stated another way, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that ocean tides would sweep over all mountains."
"...if the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, it would move to its present position in only 1.2 billion years. Stated another way, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that ocean tides would sweep over all mountains."
PyramidHead
Active member
This is always such a painful merry-go-round, with YECs picking apart everything they can find, while providing literally no proof for their own theories. Because there isn't much too it beyond "I believe it because I believe the Bible, from beginning to end, is the literal word of God". That is a legitimate position, but not one to begin a scientific theory.
some other dude
New member
![surfing-dog-m.jpg](http://img4.coastalliving.com/i/2008/09/surfing-dog-m.jpg?300:300"]http://img4.coastalliving.com/i/2008/09/surfing-dog-m.jpg?300:300)
PyramidHead
Active member
And we know the moon would have been around 1.2 billion years ago because we were there to observe it, right?
:surf:
:chuckle:
Nice backflip, PH.
It is atheists who propose a 4.5 billion year old Earth-Moon system. You're not going to tag along with popular theory this time?
PyramidHead
Active member
:surf:
:chuckle:
Nice backflip, PH.
It is atheists who propose a 4.5 billion year old Earth-Moon system. You're not going to tag along with popular theory this time?
For all I know the moon is made out of sentient cheese created by aliens to watch bird migratory patterns 1 year before I was born. I doubt it, but for all I know...
At this point it may be worth noting I don't know jack squat about the moon. But I also know is that if the moon has been around 4.5 billion years, 99.99999% of those years the variables are unknown due to lack of time machines (Hopefully they will fix this)
Great! Glad we sorted that out. :up:
Now we know that when you go on rants like this:
...we can safely ignore you.