[_ Old Earth _] 45,000 years ago

[Lewis]

Ancient people conquered the Arctic at least 45,000 years ago

http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-people-conquered-arctic-least-45-000-years-211319884.html?nhp=1

A dog runs along a bank of the Yenisei River in the Taiga district, with the air temperature at about minus 25 degrees Celsius (minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit) during sunset outside Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, Russia, January 11, 2016.

By Will Dunham

 

[brother Paul]

Have you explored Petralona Man? A human skull dating 700,000 years old!

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

I thought I read somewhere reputable that the earth was no more than 5000 to 6000 years old and the method they were using for carbon dating was inaccurate.

 

[Barbarian]

Carbon dating is not used for fossils. Too short a half-life.

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

I still think leading apologetics say the earth is 6000 years old not billions like evolutionists would have you believe.

 

[Lewis]

I still think leading apologetics say the earth is 6000 years old not billions like evolutionists would have you believe.

The earth is no more than 6 to 10.000 years old.

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

That's what i thought. I think the video i saw was on Netflix. Currently looking for it so i can quote a source.

 

[Lewis]

Six Evidences of a Young Earth

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

Thank you

 

[Barbarian]

Well, let's take a look...
AIG says:
Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds

Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.


Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.


Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!

The fact that they got a result close to the maximum possible age that could be tested with C-14 (at which C-14 would be close to zero) suggests that it's within the error bars of the result. However, there is also the fact that nitrogen is a common inclusion in diamonds, and diamonds are found in kimberlite, which has radioactive elements in it?

Why does that matter? You see, C-14 is produced from nitrogen by radiation. So the mechanism for producing C-14 from nitrogen exists in deposits of diamonds. Whether the result, is merely a zero, or an extremely tiny amount of C-14, there's no way to make it evidence for a young Earth.

 

[Barbarian]

Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.


If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

• For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.

This one is also easy to refute.

Slichter (1963) reanalyzed the Earth-moon torque by devising a new way to use the entire ellipsoid of Earth rather than treating it as a series of approximations. He decided that, depending on the specifics of the model, the moon would have started out very close to Earth anywhere from 1.4 billion to 2.3 billion years ago, rather than 4.5 billion years ago. Slichter remarked that if "for some unknown reason" the tidal torque was much less in the past than in the present (where "present" means roughly the last 100 million years), this would solve the problem. But he could not supply the reason, and concluded his paper by saying that the time scale of the Earth-moon system "still presents a major problem"; I call this "Slichter's dilemma"...The years that followed saw the rise of plate tectonics and a major shift in geophysical thinking because of it. The mobility of the drifting continents is a matter of major import, for by this time it was well realized that tidal dissipation in shallow seas dominated the interaction between Earth and the moon. Kurt Lambeck was a major player in the tidal game at that time, authoring several papers. His study of the variable rotation of Earth (Lambeck, 1980) remains the most extensive such study ever done. Lambeck noted that after the struggles of Slichter, Goldreich, and others, the observed and modeled values for tidal dissipation were finally in agreement (Lambeck, 1980, page 286). However, this still left a time scale problem. According to Lambeck, " ... unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean." (Lambeck, 1980, page 288). In section 11.4, "Paleorotation and the lunar orbit", Lambeck explicitly points out that paleontological evidence shows a much slower lunar acceleration in the past, and that this is compatible with the models for continental spreading from Pangea (Lambeck, 1980, pages 388-394). It is important to remember that by 1980, Lambeck had pointed out the essential solution to Slichter's dilemma - moving continents have a strong effect on tidal dissipation in shallow seas, which in turn dominate the tidal relationship between Earth and the moon...
But what about the past rate of retreat? Paleontological data directly reveals the periodicity of the tides, from which one can derive what the rate of retreat would be to match the frequency. It is also a non-trivial point that it proves the moon was physically there. After all, if your theory implies that the moon was not there at some time in the past, but your observed tidal evidence says that it was there in the past, then it's pretty clear that the theory, and not the observation, needs to be adjusted.

This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)

As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously rapidly. This is exactly as expected from the theoretical models that I have already referenced. The combination of consistent results from both theoretical models and paleontological evidence presents a pretty strong picture of the tidal evolution of the Earth-moon system. Bills & Ray (1999) give a good review of the current status of this harmony. Without realizing it, they have also explained well why the creationist arguments are unacceptable.

 

[Barbarian]

Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field

Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.


Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)


However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

Here's why that one won't work:
The Barnes/Humphreys hypothesis does not stand up to analysis. Barnes is correct that the dipole element of the magnetic field has indeed decreased in strength since the 19th century. However, as geologist Brent Dalrymple points out, "Barnes completely neglects the nondipole field. The same observatory measurements that show that the dipole moment has decreased since the early 1800's also show that this decrease has almost been completely balanced by an increase in the strength of the total observed field which has remained almost constant." (Dalrymple, "Can Earth Be Dated from its Magnetic Field?", Menlo Park, CA, 1992)


Barnes also presents no evidence whatever to support his assertion that the magnetic field has been decaying exponentially, or that it becomes progressively stronger in the past. And, in fact, there is no need to speculate on what the strength of the earth's magnetic field was in the past, since we have a way to directly measure it. Metallic particles such as iron are partially magnetized by the earth's magnetic field and will line themselves up with the magnetic poles. By examining these particles, we can determine the strength of the magnetic field. And such examination shows that the earth's magnetic field has not been decaying steadily. Clay pottery and other archeological finds which date to about 6,500 years ago indicate a magnetic field that was about 20% weaker than today, while artifacts from just 3,000 years ago show magnetic fields that are 45% higher than today. Thus, rather than decreasing steadily since the time of creation, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated, weaker at some times and stronger at others.
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/magnetic.htm

 

[Barbarian]

The next one is a simple dishonesty:

Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!


According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

There has been no tissue found. There is some soft organic material, but no tissue, not even any demonstrable cells, nor did the scientists who found them say they had such evidence. There was collagen and heme, but no tissue. (tissue is an array of cells organized functionally)

Interestingly, the find did provide a quick check for the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. A bit heme from a T-rex showed that it was more like the heme of birds than it was like the heme of other reptiles. Which is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory.

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

So where is your proof for your refutes?

 

[Barbarian]

The next is a naive misunderstanding about the way human populations grow:
Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth

It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.


A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!


Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!

Human population, until the introduction of agriculture, was very low. Anthropological data then shows a slow growth (with a few "crashes" due to various factors) until the industrial revolution, when things took off. Humans rarely had the resources for exponential growth until recently, and it never lasted long.

 

[Barbarian]

So where is your proof for your refutes?

Pick one, and we'll go into detail on it. If one isn't enough, then pick a second one. And more. Until you're satisfied. Let me know.

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

I pick all of them. I'm not trying to be a smart butt. I'm just curious why you say what you say.

 

[Barbarian]

The next one is a misunderstanding of the way folding happens in rock.

Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata

When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.


There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.


This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.

Rock, over millions of years, will bend through changes in crystals in the rock:
Deformation of rock involves changes in the shape and/or volume of these substances. Changes in shape and volume occur when stress and strain causes rock to buckle and fracture or crumple into folds. A fold can be defined as a bend in rock that is the response to compressional forces. Folds are most visible in rocks that contain layering. For plastic deformation of rock to occur a number of conditions must be met, including:

• The rock material must have the ability to deform under pressure and heat.
• The higher the temperature of the rock the more plastic it becomes.
• Pressure must not exceed the internal strength of the rock. If it does, fracturing occurs.
• Deformation must be applied slowly.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10l.html

There are numerous examples where the folding failed, and the rock fractured:

Let me know which one you'd like to go over in detail.

 

[Barbarian]

I pick all of them. I'm not trying to be a smart butt. I'm just curious why you say what you say.

I'll assume you want #6 first, then.

Strain, fractures, and pressure solution in natural single-layer folds
Bulletin Geologic Society of America
v. 86 no. 10 p. 1363-1376
"Intragranular strain has been measured by the twinned calcite strain-gage technique from the hinges and limbs of three single-layer minor folds with limb dips of 15°, 48°, and 67°. The folds are in unmetamorphosed, Silurian-age limestone beds enclosed in shale, in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge province of central Pennsylvania. In all three folds, the maximum compressive strain axes are subparallel to bedding and tend to plunge toward the inner arcs of the hinges. The principal deviatoric compressive strains in the fold cross sections range from −0.48 ± 0.77 to −4.75 ± 0.78 percent; the largest compressive strains are in the gentlest fold and the smallest ones are in the tightest fold. Syntectonic stylolites are abundant in the folds and approximate a fanning cleavage. Filled extension fractures occur normal to bedding on the outer arc of the hinges of the two tightest folds. Filled fractures on the limbs of the same folds began as extension fractures subparallel to bedding and evolved into throughgoing thrust faults. A significant amount of the folding deformation is evidently accomplished by pressure solution and by displacement on fractures.

The folds are interpreted as buckle folds and distinguished from transverse bends and passive folds on the basis of the mechanical contrast between the limestone and enclosing shale beds and the orientation and distribution of the principal strain axes, stylolites, and fractures. The orientations of the principal strain axes are best fit by buckle-fold models. Strain models of pure bending, layer-parallel shear, and shear parallel to the hinge plane are shown to be inadequate by themselves even as first-order approximations.

A simple rheological model including intragranular strain (twin and translation gliding, grain boundary adjustments) and pressure solution fits the inferred relationships between these features. The model presumes that intragranular strain has a yield stress, whereas pressure solution does not, and that at high stresses pressure solution is more important than intragranular strain. The model predicts that when conditions are suitable for pressure solution, more of the strain will occur by this mechanism than by twin gliding and related mechanisms. This can explain the overall low values of measured intragranular strain."

Questions?

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

Keep going