What's new
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

[__ Science __ ] Noah's Boatyard

Who Me

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
416
Gender
Male
In fact, the amount of salt lost from the ocean and the amount it gains are about the same.
Another fundamental flaw in this system is that the rates of erosion, solution, rainfall, and runoff cannot be measured over large amounts of geologic time.
[/QUOTE]
The process of salt accumulation has been proven to be reversible and in constant change. There is also no uniform rate of accumulation of salt. The only criterion met is the known final condition.
[/QUOTE]
The salt in the ocean, is in a constant state of flux, on a very large cycle. In fact, the amount of salt lost from the ocean and the amount it gains are about the same.
[/QUOTE]

Strange how something that apparently cannot be measured is in a state of flux/change and yet stays the same.

Personally I believe what the bible says over what atheistic science teaches.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,059
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
"For a process to be considered a good natural clock, it must contain the following: a known initial condition, an irreversible process, a uniform rate, and a final condition. With the salt clock, the initial condition is not known. The process of salt accumulation has been proven to be reversible and in constant change. There is also no uniform rate of accumulation of salt. The only criterion met is the known final condition. Because of these factors, the salt clock can obviously not be used as a natural clock to calculate any type of age."

Depending on the mineral you chose, you can get a wide array of ages of the Earth by this method. Nickel comes much closer to the creationist assumption than sodium chloride does. Even with replacement, nickel would reach equilibrium in about 6,500 years.
 

Who Me

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
416
Gender
Male
"For a process to be considered a good natural clock, it must contain the following: a known initial condition, an irreversible process, a uniform rate, and a final condition. With the salt clock, the initial condition is not known. The process of salt accumulation has been proven to be reversible and in constant change. There is also no uniform rate of accumulation of salt. The only criterion met is the known final condition. Because of these factors, the salt clock can obviously not be used as a natural clock to calculate any type of age."

Depending on the mineral you chose, you can get a wide array of ages of the Earth by this method. Nickel comes much closer to the creationist assumption than sodium chloride does. Even with replacement, nickel would reach equilibrium in about 6,500 years.
Most dating methods refute the long ages needed by evolution.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,059
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Most dating methods refute the long ages needed by evolution.
I know pretty much all of them, and none of them are inconsistent with an Earth billions of years old.

So which ones do you think don't?
 

Who Me

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
416
Gender
Male
I know pretty much all of them, and none of them are inconsistent with an Earth billions of years old.

So which ones do you think don't?
All of there basic assumptions.
How does one determin how much parent material was present when that rock formed. ditto daughter material.
How does one measure how much of either material has been leech out or washed in?
When measurements of different types of rock, crystal etc in the same sample give different ages how are these differences resolved.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,059
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Barbarian asks:
I know pretty much all of them, and none of them are inconsistent with an Earth billions of years old.

So which ones do you think don't?

All of there basic assumptions.
You're not the only one. No one else can point to even one, either.

How does one determin how much parent material was present when that rock formed. ditto daughter material.
Isochrons. And known permeability of rock after it hardens.

How does one measure how much of either material has been leech out or washed in?
Same way. That's why a lot of minerals can't be used for dating. They have permeabilities that are significant over hundreds of millions of years. Which might be O.K. for some short-lived isotopes, but not for those used in paleontology.

When measurements of different types of rock, crystal etc in the same sample give different ages how are these differences resolved.
Isochrons. If it's significant, the usual procedure is to repeat the sampling, and make very sure that contamination is avoided. Significant errors usually indicate xenochrysts (unmelted material contained in the lava) were not removed from the sample.
 

Who Me

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
416
Gender
Male
Barbarian asks:
I know pretty much all of them, and none of them are inconsistent with an Earth billions of years old.

So which ones do you think don't?



You're not the only one. No one else can point to even one, either.



Isochrons. And known permeability of rock after it hardens.



Same way. That's why a lot of minerals can't be used for dating. They have permeabilities that are significant over hundreds of millions of years. Which might be O.K. for some short-lived isotopes, but not for those used in paleontology.



Isochrons. If it's significant, the usual procedure is to repeat the sampling, and make very sure that contamination is avoided. Significant errors usually indicate xenochrysts (unmelted material contained in the lava) were not removed from the sample.
Yet these methods still produce conflicting dates which have to be 'interpreted' to fit in with the preconcoved ideas of the scientist.
Gives a view of iscrohic dating and thev conflicts results. The author and sampler is a scientist and knows how to obtain and protect rock samples.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,059
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

(a) Dr A A Snelling 1 - creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

(b) Dr A A Snelling 2 - consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.

Snelling, as you might know, is an official of "Answers in Genesis" which was caught altering the statements of two astronomers to make it appear that they believed things that they did not. (evidence on request)

So, it's not very reassuring that all the data from other geologist's sampling gives consistent results, but Snelling's does not.

From one of Snelling's fellow creationists:
Snelling collected numerous samples of amphibolites during his raft trips through the Canyon. The sample size that Snelling dated is twenty-seven. Snelling sent the samples to two top dating laboratories. Typically, Snelling refuses to provide an estimated date to the laboratories (he does not operate like normal geologists do). This article does not say whether or not he provided the estimated dates.
Another issue that is difficult to examine is Snelling’s methods of sample preparation. Secular geologists, who routinely date rocks, know precisely how to prepare samples for dating. Snelling, who does not accept radiometric dating, has little practical experience in radiometric dating sample preparation. This article fails to explain how he prepared the samples. However, since he has an agenda (to disprove radiometric dating), it doesn’t matter if the samples are prepared properly or not.

It is not surprising that the ages that Snelling obtains does not match (if they did, would he become an old earth creationist?). Snelling says, “Clearly, the calculated ages are useless for dating any event.” Since Snelling already believed this, he confirmed his own thoughts.
...
Snelling uses a text box at the end of the article to push the theory that radioactive decay in the past was accelerated. This is a recent, interesting development in the young earth movement. Young earth scientists now admit that the rock record contains evidence of billions of years of radioactive decay. I welcome this admission, because it makes the old earth creationist case even stronger.
The young earth model now states that two periods…the creation week, and the Genesis Flood, were responsible for this accelerated decay. In short, the problem this model faces is one of heat. Cramming billions of years of radioactive decay into a year long flood is a bad idea because the amount of heat from this amount of decay would have melted the entire earth. For those who wish to examine this theory in more detail, please check out the review of the young earth book, Thousands…Not Billions.

Conclusion

Yes, we already know that there are discordant isochron dates out there. Geologists who frequently date rocks run across this occasionally. They also run across dates which agree with each other. Snelling has merely confirmed what geologists have known for some time.


One easy way to get a creationist result, is what YE creationist R. Gentry did at Mt. St. Helens. He gathered recently hardened lava containing xenocrysts (material that did not melt during the eruption) and expressed surprise that he got a very ancient result for rock only decades old.

This is why geologists don't take YE creationist results seriously, unless they can document the sampling was free of contamination.
 

Please consider donating

Total amount
$737.00
Goal
$4,080.00
Top