[_ Old Earth _] How old is the Earth?

[lordkalvan]

Lies such as how Evolution is 'proven'...

So what better and equally consilient explanation do you have for the evidence that appears to support evolutionary theory?

...and Evolutionists are 'they' doing the hiding.

So what are these 'Evolutionists' hiding, then, and how are they hiding it?

It's not a conspiracy theory it is an actual statement...

A statement which suggests a conspiracy theory. Let's see the actual evidence.

...or at least that's what my biologist teacher says and shes taught Evolution for THIRTY YEARS.

So your biology teacher has taught evolution for 30 years and yet she believes it is a lie and 'Evolutionists' are hiding the truth? Where's her evidence?

 

[lordkalvan]

Carbon dating is extremely unreliable.

What makes you think this? What do you mean by 'extremely unreliable'? What evidence supports this claim?

But do look over the internet a lot of researchers have done carbon dating and have found that dinosaur bones fit with the Biblical time period but instead of publishing that they stayed with their millions of years old theory.

Which researchers are these, then? Can you cite their research studies? Are you aware that dinosaur bones are fossilized, i.e. they have been mineralized, and that it is not possible to date items that do not include organic material? If dinosaur 'bones' have been carbon-dated, any such carbon-dating would return wholly unreliable data about the age of the bones and any results would most likely be the result of contamination.

In parentheses, I am intrigued that you regard carbon dating as 'extremely unreliable' and yet, when it returns a result that seems to support a theologically-derived idea of Earth's age, you seem ready to accept it. Why is this?

 

[lordkalvan]

Dinosaurs technically could coexist with humans.

What do you mean by 'technically'? 'technically' they are separated by several tens of millions of years of geologic time.

Just because no research groups want to tell the truth doesn't mean Evolution is proven.

Just because you suppose that 'no research groups want to tell the truth' does not mean that the 'truth' as you wish it to be exists.

Oh and quotes and musings: black hole at the center of the universe

Sorry, your link does not work. What is it supposed to illuminate?

 

[EricTheBaptist]

What do you mean by 'technically'? 'technically' they are separated by several tens of millions of years of geologic time.

Just because you suppose that 'no research groups want to tell the truth' does not mean that the 'truth' as you wish it to be exists.

Sorry, your link does not work. What is it supposed to illuminate?

http://quotesandmusings.blogspot.com/2007/09/black-hole-at-center-of-universe.html

 

[EricTheBaptist]

So what better and equally consilient explanation do you have for the evidence that appears to support evolutionary theory?

So what are these 'Evolutionists' hiding, then, and how are they hiding it?

A statement which suggests a conspiracy theory. Let's see the actual evidence.

So your biology teacher has taught evolution for 30 years and yet she believes it is a lie and 'Evolutionists' are hiding the truth? Where's her evidence?

The worlds leading Evolutionists disagree with it and some other stuff. I can't ask her until next Sunday but I know a lot of it has to do with micro Evolution. Evolutionists are hiding the truth behind their theory why would they tell the truth? They WANT PEOPLE to NOT believe in Creationism.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

What makes you think this? What do you mean by 'extremely unreliable'? What evidence supports this claim?

Which researchers are these, then? Can you cite their research studies? Are you aware that dinosaur bones are fossilized, i.e. they have been mineralized, and that it is not possible to date items that do not include organic material? If dinosaur 'bones' have been carbon-dated, any such carbon-dating would return wholly unreliable data about the age of the bones and any results would most likely be the result of contamination.

In parentheses, I am intrigued that you regard carbon dating as 'extremely unreliable' and yet, when it returns a result that seems to support a theologically-derived idea of Earth's age, you seem ready to accept it. Why is this?

If you want to know how it is unreliable ask a chemist. I know it has something to do with temperature and such. The Bible says there were dinosaurs, they could live together with humans, and the Great Flood would be washing mud and all kinds of rocks and water all over these drowning animals. No wonder we have fossils! This link will explain why Carbon Dating doesn't work http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

 

[jasoncran]

Umm, no, in this case we look for evidence that either supports or falsifies a particular hypothesis. None of the comments in the article you referenced (your link does not work, btw) appears to put forward the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed as a consequence of a global flood of biblical proportions occurring in recent historical times or to suggest that there is any evidence that supports such an idea.

that wasnt the point, there a myriad of views all of them not even in a consensus.

the creationists say the grand canyon and this were formed by large masses of water and quickly. since your camp hasnt observed the formations any cliams just speculated, what do you say to the mini grand canyon formed in 8 hrs.

Millions of gallons of water from the melting glacier on top of Mt. St. Helens flowed down the Tuttle river before the ash cloud begin spewing high into the atmosphere. The mud flow laid down hundreds of feet of sediment and then the ash settled on top of it.

So, it was not what geologists are used to seeing. They assume that sediment below ash and lava was formed by slow gradual sedimentation, but the eruption at Mt. St. Helens proved them wrong.

In the picture you can clearly see three different layers. The middle layer is sediment - not ash or lava - that was deposited before the ash settled. The bottom layer is ash from a previous eruption.

this from another creation site that i am on. we all know this did happen so it is possible that if these layeres were made that way by water alone for the earth to be old if we never have seen what was there save by prioris.?


and this.

 

[jasoncran]

Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.
See Also:
Plants & Animals

• Nature
• Endangered Plants

Earth & Climate

• Global Warming
• Air Quality

Fossils & Ruins

• Fossils
• Origin of Life

Reference

• Metamorphic rock
• Sedimentary rock
• Crust (geology)
• Feldspar mineral

The team -- which includes researchers from Boston College, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, NASA's Johnson Space Center and the Naval Research Laboratory -- says new evidence from Canada's Hudson Bay region shows carbonaceous particles are millions of years younger than the rock in which they're found, pointing to the likelihood that the carbon was mixed in with the metamorphic rock later than the rock's earliest formation -- estimated to be 3.8 to 4.2 billion years ago.
The samples come from the Nuvvuagittuq Supracrustal Belt, a sedimentary banded iron formation located in the Archean Superior craton, one of Earth's ancient continental shields. Samples were subjected to a range of high-tech tests in an effort to more clearly characterize the carbon in the rock.
Traditional techniques used by scientists have involved collecting samples and crushing them into powder and then determining the bulk characteristics of carbon minerals. The new approach relies upon a variety of microscopy and spectroscopy methods to characterize intact micro-fabricated cross-sections of crystalline graphite removed from the rock samples. The results found that the carbon was very young compared to the age of these oldest rock samples ever unearthed.
"The characteristics of the poorly crystalline graphite within the samples are not consistent with the metamorphic history of the rock," said Boston College Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences Dominic Papineau, a co-author of the report. "The carbon in the graphite is not as old as the rock. That can only ring a bell and require us to ask if we need to reconsider earlier studies."
Nearly 4,000-million years old samples from Greenland have been used to develop the dominant time line regarding the emergence of the earliest biosphere. The recent findings suggest the biosphere may have emerged millions of years later, a hypothesis that now demands a rigorous study, said Papineau.
"It could be that researchers in the field need to go back to Greenland to restudy these rocks and determine if the the carbonaceous materials are in fact as old as the metamorphosed rock itself," Papineau said.
As the planet evolved, rock and other matter was subjected to a range of temperatures that leave telltale signatures scientists can now study. The team's examination found that the rock samples were subjected to high-grade metamorphism. Yet the crystalline structure of the graphite present in the samples was not, leading scientists to conclude the matter infiltrated the rock at a later stage in time, though the exact timing is not clear at this point.
The presence of carbon and the specific characteristics of that carbon's source material are crucial to understanding the evolution of the early microbial biosphere. The subject of much debate within scientific circles, a new set of assumptions may be required when using the presence of carbon to date milestones in Earth's evolution.
"We can no longer assume that carbon is indigenous in the oldest metamorphosed sedimentary rock," said Papineau. "In very old rocks, the fundamental questions are now whether the carbon is biological in origin and if it is indigenous to the rocks."
Funding organizations for this work included the NASA Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology Program, Carnegie of Canada, the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the Keck Foundation and the Fond Québécois pour la recherche sur la nature et les technologies.

from science daily.

Young graphite in old rocks challenges the earliest signs of life

 

[jasoncran]

Why does it cut though a Plateau?


Back to Geology!
Backcountry Hiking!
This summer more than three million tourists will venture to the rim of the Grand Canyon and are likely to feel their jaws drop as they gaze upon the world famous spectacle: a vast wilderness of rocks, deep gorges and a mighty river lost below cliffs, buttes and pinnacles festooned in pastel shades of purple, orange, pink and green.

Inevitably, some of these visitors will turn to a park ranger and ask: "How did the Grand Canyon get formed? Why did this happen here and nowhere else?"

The honest answer is that nobody knows. One hundred and thirty-one years after John Wesley Powell first mapped the Colorado River by riding its 161 rapids in heavy wooden boats, no one can prove how the canyon was formed.

But it is not for lack of trying.

Geologists are puzzle freaks who love nothing more than collecting fragmentary clues -- clumps of gravel, fossilized shells and pollens, the dates that muddy sediments were deposited in dried-up lakes or whole mountain ranges were lifted -- and then trying desperately to figure out how the modern topography before their eyes was produced.

The week of June 10, 2000 , more than 80 earth scientists will gather in Grand Canyon Village to compare notes and work toward a unified theory of how and when the Grand Canyon formed. The last time a similar group of experts met to discuss the evolution of the Colorado River was in August 1964, before modern theories of plate tectonics revolutionized geophysics with the notion that continents could drift, slam into one another and alter entire landscapes the size of the American Southwest. Not surprisingly, the favorite theories from the previous era are now on the table for serious revision.

"It's time to take a new look at the evidence,"said Dr. Richard Young, a geologist at the State University of New York at Geneseo, who organized the conference and is an expert on gravel deposits in the canyon. In the times since the last meeting, geologists have dated more rock formations, identified new deposits and are working from a more sophisticated framework about the overall geological history of the Southwest, he said.

The meeting, which brought together geologists, paleontologists and climate experts who do not get much chance to interact.

After they talk and go home to think about what they have learned, pieces of the puzzle may perhaps fit together in new ways. The problem is that many features in the Grand Canyon do not make any sense.

The modern Colorado appears to be a young river that flows out of the Rockies and hits a huge plateau, called the Kaibab Upwarp, which is 50 million to 70 million years old. Instead of being shunted away from this barrier, the river runs right through it. Moreover, when sediments from the river are examined closely, it is clear that the western end of the canyon -- where it flattens out and begins its final run to the Gulf of California -- is many millions of years younger than the eastern part of the river.

To many experts, this difference means that the Grand Canyon could have been cobbled together from ancient river basins that were created during different geologic eras. But if so, when and how were those ancient rivers formed and where did they go?

In seeking answers, geologists are faced with a difficult problem.

For critical periods of canyon formation, the geologic record is entirely missing. The rocks and fossils that researchers need in order to tell a coherent story have either washed away or been buried, presumably in places not yet discovered.

Nevertheless, experts have used the few clues they have to develop two main competing theories about the formation of the canyon. One maintains that the Colorado River is old and that it carved the Grand Canyon at least 70 million years ago. The other says that the river is young and carved the canyon within the last five million years.

The first explanation, advanced by Powell and other early geologists, holds that the river has a simple history. In the beginning of the Tertiary period, 70 million years ago, Arizona was flat and the river flowed in its present course, roughly east to west.

Then, during various periods of uplift apparently caused by collisions between gigantic slabs of the earth's crust, the Kaibab Upwarp began to rise at a rate that exactly matched the river's capacity to erode the landscape. According to this view, the canyon cutting took place gradually, with the river staying in place and the land around it rising upward.

This theory held sway for more than 50 years, Dr. Young said, but today it has few adherents because too many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. For example, as mentioned, a major part of the riverbed shows strong evidence of being younger than the Kaibab Upwarp.

One holdout for the old river explanation is Dr. Don Elston, a retired geologist with the United States Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Ariz., who has been working on canyon formation theories since the mid-1950's.

"I've attempted to solve the problem using stratigraphy and climate data from all over the Colorado Plateau," Dr. Elston said in an interview. "Some people call it geofiction, but I think I'm right."

When dinosaurs roamed the earth, the southwestern landscape was about 1,000 feet above sea level and very wet, Dr. Elston explained.

Then the region experienced three periods of uplift followed by erosion. In the first uplift, about 100 million years ago, mountains grew across northern and central Arizona and later eroded so that a blanket of gravel a few hundred feet thick poured out to the north. These older gravels can be found today on both sides of the Grand Canyon, he said.

A second uplift occurred 60 million to 75 million years ago, producing huge rivers that eventually flowed to the west and collected in enormous inland lakes. It was during this period that the Grand Canyon was carved out, Dr. Elston said. Then the uplift ceased, erosion continued and this early Grand Canyon filled up completely with gravel.

A third uplift took place five million years ago to form the Rocky Mountains and again changed regional drainage patterns, Dr. Elston said. The land in the north rose while the southwest, relatively speaking, fell.

As a result, streams began flowing westward down from the Rockies, and found the earlier drainage channel. As they flowed down the old channel, they removed all the gravel and essentially scoured out the Grand Canyon.

"The modern Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon in the last few million years," Dr. Elston said. "The canyon was already there." After this period, he said, the climate grew very dry, which explains why there are no older river deposits at the western end of the canyon. The Colorado River dried up, ran sporadically or ran completely underground, he said.

Dr. Elston's theory is "a nice ad hoc explanation," Dr. Young said, but most people don't buy it.

Since the 1950's, numerous expeditions to the western mouth of the Grand Canyon, in a region called the Grand Wash Cliffs, have found no evidence of an older Colorado River running through, sporadically or otherwise.

Local sediments stem from a younger geologic formation called the Basin and Range -- an area that begins where the Colorado Plateau drops off at the western edge of the Grand Canyon and the landscape stretches out for hundreds of miles, all the way to eastern California.

Everything points to the idea that the upper reaches of the Colorado River are very old and the lower reaches are very new, Dr. Young said.

.

 

[jasoncran]

If the upper Colorado River did not always flow into its present course, where did it go? Dozens of papers have been written on this, said Dr. Steve Reynolds, a geologist at Arizona State University in Tempe. Most of these theories posit two separate river systems that somehow hooked up not far from today's visitors center on the south rim.

A popular theory from the 1960's held that one of the rivers came down from Colorado or Utah, flowed south along the course of what is now the Little Colorado River and joined the Rio Grande into the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, to the west, a small unnamed river flowed across the Basin and Range province and into the Gulf of California.

This younger river, or stream drainage system, was vigorous and steep, according to this theory. Through a process called headward erosion, it gradually moved eastward, gobbling up the land around its headwaters in Pac-Man fashion, until it met up with the ancestral upper Colorado.

This younger river captured the older river, Dr. Reynolds said, established its present course and then carved the Grand Canyon only four million to six million years ago.

Of course there are problems, Dr. Reynolds said. The Continental Divide would have prevented an ancient Colorado River from joining the Rio Grande. So other theories propose that the river came south, hit the Kaibab Upwarp and did a U-turn back to the north. This old river system would have emptied into inland lakes in Utah or Nevada. Unfortunately, the deposits that could prove such a
drainage system existed have not been found.

Another theory holds that the ancestral Colorado flowed from the north and into a huge lake in central Arizona, laying down the so-called Bidahochi formation.

But Dr. Michael Ort, a geologist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, said he had evidence that this body of water, called Hopi Lake, was ephemeral. It would fill up occasionally and then dry out for long periods, Dr. Ort said. It does not appear that an ancient Colorado River could have drained into Hopi Lake, he said.

On the other hand, some people think that Hopi Lake could have filled from an unknown source to overflowing about five million years ago and somehow broken over a barrier that had separated it from the Colorado River. This would have created a catastrophic flood that carved the Grand Canyon very quickly, within a couple million years, Dr. Ort said. The problem with this idea is that no Bidahochi sediments have been found anywhere in the present Colorado River drainage. Again, physical proof of the theory is lacking.

Finally, several people are now saying that the existing Colorado River did carve the Grand Canyon but did so while flowing in the opposite direction of today.

The modern river is just too weird, said Andre Potochnik, a river guide who is writing his doctoral dissertation on deposits related to early Southwest river systems. It does not follow fault lines as most rivers do and it has tributaries that come in at obtuse angles, he said.

Mr. Potochnik argues that a much older river flowed west to east down the Kaibab Upwarp and carved the canyon. Later, as tectonic forces changed the land to tilt in different directions, the river changed the direction of its flow and became the modern Colorado.

Wayne Ranney, a geology instructor at Yavapai College in Prescott, Ariz., argues that the Little Colorado River probably flowed north through Marble Canyon, a stretch of the river where tributaries come in at an angle that is the opposite of what one would expect, given the way the water flows.

"The river system I envision would have flowed north into the Glen Canyon area," Mr. Ranney said. "Every time I see this landscape, I'm more convinced that at least this part of the river went the other way. The beauty of this theory is that it ties together a lot of conflicting ideas concerning evidence for an old river east of the Kaibab Upwarp and a young one west of it."

Figuring out the Grand Canyon is like being a police officer called to the scene of a four-car accident, Dr. Reynolds said.

"But by the time you get there, three of the cars have been towed away, they repaved the road and washed away the skid marks. You are left with only one piece of the puzzle."

Larry Stevens, a river guide and expert on Grand Canyon ecology, said that the Grand Canyon might be a "geological koan." "People can spend a lifetime pursuing these questions and we may never know the answers," Larry said. "Once you've been in The Canyon, everything else is just commentary"
Making Sense of Grand Canyon's Puzzles
June 6, 2000 New York Times By Sandra Blaksee

 

[Deavonreye]

Well they've done a good job at hiding the Evolution lies so why could they not hide this lie? The Earth can't be millions of years old because we we're pumping oil out of it at this exact moment.

What "lies" have they concealed about evolution? :

And it is clear that the earth and universe are extremely old. Again, there would be no reason for someone in the science community to "hide the truth of a young earth". Scientific experimentation and the scientific methode have no agenda. What is produced in tests is what it is. What is discovered about the distances of stars cannot be misunderstood for anything other than what it is. . . EXTREME old age.

 

[jasoncran]

What "lies" have they concealed about evolution? :

And it is clear that the earth and universe are extremely old. Again, there would be no reason for someone in the science community to "hide the truth of a young earth". Scientific experimentation and the scientific methode have no agenda. What is produced in tests is what it is. What is discovered about the distances of stars cannot be misunderstood for anything other than what it is. . . EXTREME old age.

read what i have posted, that isnt quite settled as those rocks that have carbon in them arent quite playing the game.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

What "lies" have they concealed about evolution? :

And it is clear that the earth and universe are extremely old. Again, there would be no reason for someone in the science community to "hide the truth of a young earth". Scientific experimentation and the scientific methode have no agenda. What is produced in tests is what it is. What is discovered about the distances of stars cannot be misunderstood for anything other than what it is. . . EXTREME old age.

It can easily be hid and it is a conspiracy. Most Atheists are not honest enough to credit Christianity even if it is right. Atheists are not out there to try and credit Christianity like it is true. Think of it like this for every 100 Atheist scientists maybe only 1 of them would openly credit Christianity if they found the results to be true. And then it comes to the fact that you have 1 persons word over what 100 others will say.

Also check out where they found the 47 inch femur and check out how the T-Rex relates to biblical scripture!

 

[Deavonreye]

It can easily be hid and it is a conspiracy. Most Atheists are not honest enough to credit Christianity even if it is right. Atheists are not out there to try and credit Christianity like it is true. Think of it like this for every 100 Atheist scientists maybe only 1 of them would openly credit Christianity if they found the results to be true. And then it comes to the fact that you have 1 persons word over what 100 others will say.

Also check out where they found the 47 inch femur and check out how the T-Rex relates to biblical scripture!

Why would scientists want to "credit christianity"? Supernatural claims cannot be tested, so it would make no sense to "test for it". I hope that simple statement is understood.

I am not sure what you're getting at with "the 47" femur or relation to T-Rex in the bible. Point me to what you're talking about.

 

[Deavonreye]

read what i have posted, that isnt quite settled as those rocks that have carbon in them arent quite playing the game.

If you're talking about carbon dating, that isn't the method to date rock, . . . only organic matter.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Why would scientists want to "credit christianity"? Supernatural claims cannot be tested, so it would make no sense to "test for it". I hope that simple statement is understood.

I am not sure what you're getting at with "the 47" femur or relation to T-Rex in the bible. Point me to what you're talking about.

Proof evolution is WRONG

 

[Deavonreye]

Proof evolution is WRONG

Link didn't work. If you could, would you give a summary of what the link is stating? Thanks.

 

[lordkalvan]

quotes and musings: black hole at the center of the universe

Your link still doesn't work. How does it answer the questions I asked?

 

[lordkalvan]

The worlds leading Evolutionists disagree with it and some other stuff.

This is all very vague. Who are the 'worlds leading Evolutionists' and what are they disagreeing with?

I can't ask her until next Sunday but I know a lot of it has to do with micro Evolution.

What do you mean by microevolution?

Evolutionists are hiding the truth behind their theory why would they tell the truth?

Accusations are easy and cheap. Where's your evidence?

They WANT PEOPLE to NOT believe in Creationism.

What makes you think creationism is the only alternative to the theory of evolution?

 

[lordkalvan]

If you want to know how it is unreliable ask a chemist.

You're the one who made the assertion so I'm asking you. Do you have any explanation at all as to why carbon dating is 'extremely unreliable' or is this just a phrase you are repeating parrot-like because it is something you have been told over and over?

I know it has something to do with temperature and such.

This is all very vague. The temperature of what? Do you have any details at all?

The Bible says there were dinosaurs...

Where?

...they could live together with humans...

Evidence?

...and the Great Flood would be washing mud and all kinds of rocks and water all over these drowning animals.

And mixing them all up together, presumably.

No wonder we have fossils!

But nowhere do we find human fossils together with or even in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. Why do you think this is?

This link will explain why Carbon Dating doesn't work Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric dating methods. creation evolution young earth evidence old earth bible

Your link doesn't work, but i checked out the site. It presents a farrago of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and downright nonsense. I am led to wonder whether it is written out of simple ignorance or as a deliberate attempt to deceive.