[_ Old Earth _] 45,000 years ago

[Barbarian]

Let's do AIG's story # 1 next:
C-14 source:
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Nitrogen is found in diamonds:
The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen, which can comprise up to 1% of a diamond by mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defects_in_diamond

Ionizing radiation is found in diamond deposits:
Abundances of U and Th have been determined in 21 kimberlites from India by delayed fission neutron technique. Whole-rock U ranges from 1.87 to 3.93 ppm but Th shows wider variation from 14.02 to 60.44 ppm. Average Th/U ratios in three main diatremes are 7.9, 8.8 and 10.0. The interrelationships between U, Th and K are variable and complex. A positive correlation exists between P2O5 and U and Th. Model calculations suggest that enrichment of U involved considerable mantle reaction during ascent.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703777902411

Extreme ages for C-14 are likely to be errors:
Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
Hawkins, Gerald S. 1965. Stonehenge Decoded. New York: Doubleday & Co.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

Questions?

 

[Free]

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

Many apologists believe in an old earth.

 

[Milk-Drops]

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

Who are these leading apologists that are claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, and who are these evolutionists that say otherwise?

Also, why would pointing out carbon dating's half life refute an Earth that is around 4.5+ billion years old?

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

Again I'm going to have to look up which video i watched.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I dislike AIG because the site tends to use Evolutionist to mean anyone who disagrees with them on a term or result that they want to use. There is no solid meaning behind it. If Evolutionist just meant biologists that except Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It would make sense, but the term is thrown onto Geologists, Astrologists, Physicists, Chemists etc who aren't even in a related field of biology.

AIG also prefers to play word games and semantic arguments where , depending on the article, will change the meanings of terms that mean one thing to a specific science field and use lay definitions. Such as theory, for example. I can't trust a website that is trying to be deceptive.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Again I'm going to have to look up which video i watched.

Thats fine and good, but are you aware that there are several dating methods and that the reason why geologists and Geo Chemists is because when layers are dated these is a reliable reading up to the half life of each dating method. Even carbon dating has shown to be accurate when measuring the decay rate of organisms that died up to a couple thousand years.

 

[brother Paul]

MD it can also be said that scientists who do not accept the Darwinian view (note I did not say they do not accept a version of some of his ideas) are portrayed by sites that push the Darwinian model either as Creationists, less credible, incorrect, etc., but I agree AIG is definitely a pro-YEC propaganda machine (kind of like Talk Origins for Darwinians)

 

[Milk-Drops]

MD it can also be said that scientists who do not accept the Darwinian view (note I did not say they do not accept a version of some of his ideas) are portrayed by sites that push the Darwinian model either as Creationists, less credible, incorrect, etc., but I agree AIG is definitely a pro-YEC propaganda machine (kind of like Talk Origins for Darwinians)

I'm not talking on behalf of any other website, just my own opinions.

 

[brother Paul]

I know...just sharing my own...I would to see the many sides just listen....and think about possibilities

 

[Lewis]

Barbarian wrote
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!

Wow now that is the first time that I heard of that, and it calls for a investigation to the highest degree, because I am skeptical.

 

[Warrior4Jesus]

Honestly since we are simply speaking opinions this whole conversation is a mute point. If how old the earth is ends up being the breaking point in your belief in God and His Word.....Buddy you got problems. One thing is for certain if you believe in the Almighty Most High creator of everything.... One day we'll know and that's all we really need to know.

 

[brother Paul]

The Almighty Most High IS ultimately the creator of everything...He created Human kind in and through Adam and Eve (not via apes) but since them our "bodies" are procreated (bu our being fruitful and multiplying)...did not create your "body" or my "body" directly but He gave each of us our soul/spirit...

 

[Barbarian]

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!

Wow now that is the first time that I heard of that, and it calls for a investigation to the highest degree, because I am skeptical.

Rightly so:

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.

 

[brother Paul]

A bit off topic bit do you believe the Moon was once a part of the earth that broke off, perhaps by Astroid or Meteor impact?

 

[Barbarian]

The calculations I saw suggested it would take a Mars-sized body. Of course, in the early solar system, there would be many such, before the few survivors settled into stable orbits.