[_ Old Earth _] Earth age

[Featherbop]

How old has the earth really been dated?

I hear some people say old, some young, some in the middle. Whatever.

But do the dating methods all come up with different ways. Which methods are right?

Are there any good methods?

Are they all fixed?

I know for evolutionists would be defeated if it trurned out the earth is indeed young only a few thousand years old, because evolution needs a long tiome to work, or so goes that false belierf.

Now, most crweationists on the other hand, genarally believe the earth is aboot 6000-8000 thousand years old.

I'm thinking it is, because I don't know who to believe about the dating methods, and the results.

But, it could also be biblical that the earth is very old, beacuse it is unknown how long eve and adam were in the gaarden of eden.

______

What do you think?

 

[Pearly Gator]

How old has the earth really been dated?

I hear some people say old, some young, some in the middle. Whatever.

But do the dating methods all come up with different ways. Which methods are right?

Are there any good methods?

Are they all fixed?

I know for evolutionists would be defeated if it trurned out the earth is indeed young only a few thousand years old, because evolution needs a long tiome to work, or so goes that false belierf.

Now, most crweationists on the other hand, genarally believe the earth is aboot 6000-8000 thousand years old.

I'm thinking it is, because I don't know who to believe about the dating methods, and the results.

But, it could also be biblical that the earth is very old, beacuse it is unknown how long eve and adam were in the gaarden of eden.

______

What do you think?

First off, carbon dating is full of errors. The rules of Metrology (the science of measurement) state that without knowing your measurement uncertainty, your measurement is meaningless. What is the carbon dating equipment calibrated to to qualify it to measure millions and billions of years? Nothing.

During the manned mission to the moon, scientists had a great concern. They know how much meteoric dust accumulates on the moon in a decade. If the moon was billions years old, the dust could be thirty five feet thick and swallow up the lunar lander. The dust proved to be only three inches thick.

Just my $0.02.

The Gator

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Hadn't heard about the lunar worries before, but I am very much looking forward to Barb's response. This would be a good chance for me to become re-educated with the subject... lately I've become very interested in it once again.

BL

 

[Barbarian]

BL, is right; these two are pretty shopworn. Let's take a look at them:

First off, carbon dating is full of errors.

Not true (we'll get to that in a moment) and irrelevant, since C14 dating is only good out to about 60,000 years.

And it's been calibrated by the best possible means; a standard showing precisely what the C14 ratios were in each year from the present to the limits of the method:

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

Notice that agreement between the calibration curves and data from dendrochronology. It's remarkably good. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

However, we do have longer-lived isotopes that do give us good numbers. If done with care, one can go out to several billion years, enough for our needs. We know these work, because we are able to calibrate them with knowns, also:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... mpeii.html

The rules of Metrology (the science of measurement) state that without knowing your measurement uncertainty, your measurement is meaningless. What is the carbon dating equipment calibrated to to qualify it to measure millions and billions of years? Nothing.

Wrong. The very best sort of calibration. Known standards. How are they known? Because varves are semiannual lamina, that form each year in undisturbed lake sediments. One light and one dark layer each year. They form that way because winters and summers reflect growing season and sediments. Hence, they are very reliable. How do we know that they form that way? Because we can still observe them doing just that.

During the manned mission to the moon, scientists had a great concern. They know how much meteoric dust accumulates on the moon in a decade. If the moon was billions years old, the dust could be thirty five feet thick and swallow up the lunar lander. The dust proved to be only three inches thick.

Actually, they knew it wasn't going to be that thick, because they had found an error in the original estimate of meteoric dust in the solar system. The best estimate is that it takes a few billion years to accumulate an average layer of a few centimeters.

Even honest creationists admit this:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/20043.htm

 

[evanman]

There will never be agreement on this subject. The idolatry of evolution and the God honouring study of creation. The science of man and the science of God; man's wisdom and God's wisdom!

Evolutionists will not compromise with creationists, however some creationists will compromise and try to mingle the two.

One thing that cannot be explained by evolutionists--how sin entered the world and why? and the remedy!

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution can't say how sin entered the world. But evolutionists can. Scientists aren't limited to science.

 

[Pearly Gator]

Evanman, the second law of thermodynamics shows that the conjecture of evolution of the universe through some 'big bang' is ridiculous. The suggestion that "all we need is enough time for something to happen" is a vain defense.

 

[victorhadin]

Evanman, the second law of thermodynamics shows that the conjecture of evolution of the universe through some 'big bang' is ridiculous. The suggestion that "all we need is enough time for something to happen" is a vain defense.

I asked you quite clearly in another thread to justify your 2nd law of thermodynamics argument, so can you kindly elaborate?

I have a feeling you don't understand it.

 

[evanman]

Still not been able to explain through evolution how that Man fell and sin entered the world!

 

[Barbarian]

Why would you want evolution to explain that? Science can explain how we evolved, but not our relationship to God.

For that, you will have to look elsewhere.

 

[Free]

since C14 dating is only good out to about 60,000 years.

Actually it's 51,000 years, in ideal conditions; so it is more likely 30,000 years or so.

Something I find interesting is when scientists date rocks on the planet to say, 4 or 5 billion years, they then say that is how old the earth is. But that is measuring the age of the elements in the rocks, not the age of the rocks themselves. This means that the raw materials that make up the earth are 5 billion years old, not the earth, which would be much younger than that.

Pick it apart Barbarian.

One thing for all to keep in mind is that both evolutionists and creationists bring presuppositions into their science that are wrong on some counts. Something else to think about is that there are some scientists who disagree with both the ToE and creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

Something I find interesting is when scientists date rocks on the planet to say, 4 or 5 billion years, they then say that is how old the earth is. But that is measuring the age of the elements in the rocks, not the age of the rocks themselves.

Actually, they are measuring the last time the rocks were melted. They elements in the rocks are much older, most of them having been formed in a supernova explosion much earlier.

This means that the raw materials that make up the earth are 5 billion years old, not the earth, which would be much younger than that.

No. The date is the last time the rocks were melted in the Earth. The Earth is actually older than that.

Pick it apart Barbarian.

OK. I found a few flaws.

One thing for all to keep in mind is that both evolutionists and creationists bring presuppositions into their science that are wrong on some counts.

Those being?

Something else to think about is that there are some scientists who disagree with both the ToE and creationism.

Not many. The Soviets had some antiDarwinian scientists, but their ideas were decisively discredited by the evidence, as were the Lamakans who remained (mostly in France).

 

[Barbarian]

BTW:

"CARBON 14 DATING : A measure of the rate of decay of a particular atom of the carbon element found in organic matter which has a definitive half life.This was discovered in 1949 by Arnold & Libby. This half life is measured at approx 5,730 years.Recently Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy (AMS) has improved C14 accuracy and now its reliability can be extended back to between 40,000 and 60,000 years. "

http://www.bluhorizonlines.org/glos.html

 

[evanman]

Why would you want evolution to explain that? Science can explain how we evolved, but not our relationship to God.

For that, you will have to look elsewhere.

The problem with "Evilution" is that the fact that it denighs the creation story, it also denighs the problem of sin and redemption. The Bible account definately places the fall at the feet of ONE MAN--Adam!

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Why would you want evolution to explain that? Science can explain how we evolved, but not our relationship to God.

For that, you will have to look elsewhere.

The problem with "Evilution" is that the fact that it denighs the creation story,

Nope. In fact, early Christians, like St. Augustine, actually pointed out that some form of evolution was necessary.

it also denighs the problem of sin and redemption. The Bible account definately places the fall at the feet of ONE MAN--Adam!

That's fine with evolutionary theory.

 

[Pearly Gator]

BTW:

"CARBON 14 DATING : A measure of the rate of decay of a particular atom of the carbon element found in organic matter which has a definitive half life.This was discovered in 1949 by Arnold & Libby. This half life is measured at approx 5,730 years.Recently Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy (AMS) has improved C14 accuracy and now its reliability can be extended back to between 40,000 and 60,000 years. "

http://www.bluhorizonlines.org/glos.html

So what good is your measurement of rocks if your instrument is only useful for organic material? How do you differentiate between the minerals in the rocks and when the conglomerate was formed?

What is the measurement uncertanty? Remember, you are calling five decimal places as evidence.

 

[victorhadin]

But carbon dating is not the method used to test the 'very' old rocks anyhow. Uranium-thorium, uranium-lead and lead-lead dating methods are also employed, amongst many others.

 

[Pearly Gator]

But carbon dating is not the method used to test the 'very' old rocks anyhow. Uranium-thorium, uranium-lead and lead-lead dating methods are also employed, amongst many others.

The Carbon-14 age estimating method is, at best, only useful for estimating the age of things that are thousands of years old, not millions or billions. And it does not work on rocks or thoroughly mineralized fossils; it is only useful for relatively well-preserved organic materials such as cloth, wood, and other non-fossilized materials. Other methods must be used to estimate the age of rocks and minerals. Two of the most widely-known systems are the potassium-argon method and the uranium-lead method.

A radioactive form of potassium is found in minute quantities in some rocks. It disintegrates at a measured rate into calcium and argon. Similarly, the radioactive element uranium decomposes into lead and some other elements.

How are these processes used to estimate the age of rocks? The principle is similar to that used with Carbon-14. The speed of the disintegration process is measured. A portion of the material is ground up and a measurement is made of the ratio of radioactive "parent" atoms to the decomposition products.

Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced. For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.

The uranium-lead dating method has produced so many anomalous readings that it has fallen into disrepute, even among Evolutionists.

"It should be noted that dates (absolute dates) obtained by different methods [radioactive dating methods] commonly show some discrepancies... As the Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time said in 1950, 'These figures (i.e. dates) are, as railway timetables say, subject to change without notice.'" (p. 378)

D.G.A. Whitten and J.R.V. Brooks, The Penguin Dictionary of Geology (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1972), 520 pp.

Robert H. Brown, "Graveyard Clocks: Do They Really Tell Time?", Signs of the Times (June 1982), pp. 8-9.

John Woodmorappe, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16 (September 1979), pp. 102-129.

Randy L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976), pp. 154-156.

 

[evanman]

We must also take into account the sciences of Geology and Palaentology.

Geologists date stratum by the fossils that are found there.

Palaentologists date fossils from the dates given by the geologists for the stratum the fossils are found in!


:-?

 

[Pearly Gator]

Correct, Evanman. As as we know, that's no evidence at all.

Since the 19th. century, self proclaimed "experts" have theorized and said the earth is millions or billions of years old. Only in the past fifty years has technology such as Carbon dating and Uranium-lead dating been around. These were made in an attempt to confirm those theories but are rife with errors. Not only are the measurement results not repeatable, living snails have been measured to be 26,000 years old. Our local college professor no longer talks about these dating methods because they are an embarrassment.