[_ Old Earth _] Evidence for an old earth

[kenmaynard]

Here is a nice sycinct article on some but not all the evidence for an old earth. It encompasses many areas of science.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_a ... t_creation

Here is just one section

Ice layering
A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiance cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an error rate of over 1000%, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young earth creationists.[13]

Nevertheless, the minimum age of the earth identified by these means is 160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years.)

 

[lordkalvan]

Here is a nice sycinct article on some but not all the evidence for an old earth. It encompasses many areas of science....

Nice article. I will be interested in any comments it leads to.

 

[Sparkey]

One comment would be that there doesn't seem to be a consensus between your arguments? Well, that is, unless your only point is to try to prove Creationists wrong.

"Fergit 'bout Sciencetism - let's git dem dang creationismists good".

First I hear that the universe is going to have its 16th Billionth birthday soon <relatively speaking>? Then I hear that the "new" age of the earth "could be", as determined by a new ice layer counting method, within a range of 160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years). Let's get out a calculator, shall we? You are attempting to state and prove that the age of the earth is now correctly stated as somewhere between 145k years to 175k years old?

Is that your story? Will you stick to that? Will you agree that this is what you mean? Can we pin you down on that range exactly?

Would you agree that when your quoted material states, "Currently, the greatest number of layers found..." the intent by the use of the phrase "greatest number" is to establish an upper boundary? The quote goes on to directly define the range: "Nevertheless, the minimum age of the earth identified by these means is 160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years.)" Good job there ;) .

Cordially,
~Sparrowhawke

 

[lordkalvan]

One comment would be that there doesn't seem to be a consensus between your arguments? Well, that is, unless your only point is to try to prove Creationists wrong....

I think you may be missing the point here: there are multiple dating methodologies which use different phenomena and processes to date particular features. Not all of these methodologies are effective over the same timescale because of limitations inherent in the methodology - e.g., it is not possible to extend a chronology beyond the limit to which ice cores or varve sequences extend; nor is it possible to use C14 dating to date much beyond 50,000 years ago.

This does not mean there is an inconsistency or lack of consensus as you call it. The fact that any dating methodology returns an age for a measured object, artifact or whatever that is older than the maximum supposed age of the Earth demanded by Young Earth Creationist doctrine is strong evidence for supposing that that doctrine is in error. Where multiple, independent dating methodologies return such ages, the supposition becomes overwhelming and approaches certainty. If the age of Earth can be shown from ice cores to be at least 145,000 years old, then quite clearly a theologically-derived assertion that it is 10,000 years old or less must be incorrectly derived.

Demonstrating evidentially that Earth is at least 145,000 years old is not the same thing as asserting that it is no more than 145,000 years old.

 

[Sparkey]

So I take your answer to mean that you won't agree to be pinned down to the range you quoted. Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Your quoted section of the Wiki article established for us the current "greatest" number of layers found..." in your "new" method of counting ice layers, didn't it? From there the range you quoted was indeed 160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years).

What is it then? Can you be pinned down to the statements you selected and brought to us? If not, why not? Why make the statements in the first place? When you blithely make the assertion that "your" point was missed it would not be remiss for any to point to the fact that you had taken the lead, it was you who selected the quote. I didn't miss your point at all, now did I?

...your only point is to try to prove Creationists wrong

Why else would you select that particular quote? Further analysis of your quote only serves to bolster my assertion, does it not? For example:

• Amino acid racemization: "objects can be dated up to several million years old"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
• Baptistina asteroid family: "original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
• Coral: "growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
• Continental drift: "going on for at least 200 million years"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
• Cosmogenic nuclide dating: "objects over millions of years old"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
• Dendrochronology: "tree ring chronology can be pushed back in some cases as far as 11,000 years" [/*:m:24cvys2d]
• Distant starlight: "stars there as they were over ten billion years ago"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
• Erosion: "erosion taking place over very long time periods"
  [list:24cvys2d]Note: The article seems to cite "VenomFangX" of youtube fame as an expert?!?

[/*:m:24cvys2d]
[*]Fission track dating: "fission tracks correlates to the age of the object"

• Note: The article leaves the age unstated[/*:m:24cvys2d]

[/*:m:24cvys2d]
[*]Geomagnetic reversals: "once every 50,000 to 800,000 years"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
[*]Helioseismology: [age of our sun] "4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
[*]Human Y-chromosomal ancestry: "man lived around 60,000 years ago"[/*:m:24cvys2d]
[*]Your quoted 'new' ice layering method: "160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years)"
[attachment=0:24cvys2d]IceLayering.jpg[/attachment:24cvys2d][/*:m:24cvys2d]
[*]Iron-manganese nodule growth: "several million years to form one centimeter"

• Here we are introduced to the new 'Scientific Potato' measurement system

[/*:m:24cvys2d][/list:u:24cvys2d]
[*]Impact craters: "striking the planet has been estimated at 2.5 x 10-9 yr-1"
[*]Lack of DNA in fossils: "given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years"

The article goes on and on and on in such manner. My point was that there is no consensus.

consensus n. : General agreement or accord

The only "general agreement or accord" that I can continue to discern is exactly what I observed in my first post:

"Fergit 'bout Sciencetism - let's git dem dang creationismists good".

The need you have to redefine words themselves is a red-flag to me. When all of a sudden inconsistencies as large as xxx are re-defined to become consistancies I can only and again refer to the dictionary to settle the matter. Let me first give you a chance to explain though. What again is your definition for being consistent?

Somebody in thread stated they would be "interested" in any comment: One point or comment is that your theory can not be proven wrong as stated. Isn't that a criterion for any scientific theory? I'm pretty sure it is. Another point is that I've noticed that you two like to double team creationists where one makes a silly statement such as the earth is less than 175,000 years old and then the other chimes in with the blithe responses trying as hard as he might to (and again) prove the only point to the argument, that is, Creationists are wrong.

If we must redefine words such as sycinct [sic], interested, inconsistency and consensus, I must insist that in the future you give the newly deformed definitions in advance. This to me is simply another weak left jab directed from a Wiki article of all things. Where are the vaunted peer-reviewed scientific journal sources for your statement(s)? Without resorting to further redefinition of words themselves can you really insist that I missed the point?


~Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

What Lord Kalvan is trying to patiently explain to you, is that the age of various things on the Earth is not the same thing as the age of the Earth. The fact that so many things are much older than YE creationists allow, is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.

 

[Sparkey]

So et tu Barbarian?

Will you go on record and give your support to the Wiki Article? Will you add your voice to those experts? Even the ones who proclaim their esteemed opponents to be those such as VenomTubeX? I'm disappointed. I'd think you'd like to be set aside from their ilk.

What Lord Kalvan is trying to patiently explain to you, is that the age of various things on the Earth is not the same thing as the age of the Earth. The fact that so many things are much older than YE creationists allow, is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.

It is as I have declared, the only thing they are really trying to prove is that creationists are wrong. We are agreed in this it seems.

~Sparrow

 

[kenmaynard]

So et tu Barbarian?

Will you go on record and give your support to the Wiki Article? Will you add your voice to those experts? Even the ones who proclaim their esteemed opponents to be those such as VenomTubeX? I'm disappointed. I'd think you'd like to be set aside from their ilk.

What Lord Kalvan is trying to patiently explain to you, is that the age of various things on the Earth is not the same thing as the age of the Earth. The fact that so many things are much older than YE creationists allow, is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.

It is as I have declared, the only thing they are really trying to prove is that creationists are rong. We are agreed in this it seems.

~Sparrow

Creationists aren't the ones being proven wrong. Young earthers are. One can believe in creation, and in an old earth.

 

[Barbarian]

Until the 1950s, the vast majority of creationists were of the old Earth variety. OE creationism was the sort presented at the Scopes trial, for example.

Young Earth is a very recent doctrine, an invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

 

[Sparkey]

James Ussher, the 17th-century Anglican Archbishop of Armagh is famous for his chronology of the history of the world. You've heard of Bishop Ussher, right?

Now if you were to ask me directly what I believe I might reply that my beliefs are simple enough. Although there have been many years spent in studious pursuit throughout my life, the best conclusion that I've arrived at is, "I'm not certain. I wasn't there." <---- that's it. Not very stupefying is it?

Still I do believe:

And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

So I take your answer to mean that you won't agree to be pinned down to the range you quoted. Somehow that doesn't surprise me....

If this is a reply to my post, it still seems to be missing the point, as Barbarian has indicated.

 

[Barbarian]

James Ussher, the 17th-century Anglican Archbishop of Armagh is famous for his chronology of the history of the world. You've heard of Bishop Ussher, right?

Ussher, as you might know, wasn't a YE creationist. For example, he did not espouse the Advdentist idea of "life ex nihilo." And the last accurate point in his chronology even for Biblical authority, was the death of Nebuchanezzar, about 4.5 billion years from the beginning.

 

[lordkalvan]

...It is as I have declared, the only thing they are really trying to prove is that creationists are wrong. We are agreed in this it seems.

That a particular site uses data from scientific research and understanding in an attempt to show YE creationist assertions about the age of Earth are wrong does not mean that the original purpose of the work behind that research and understanding was primarily (or even partially) directed towards showing that YE creationist assertions about the age of Earth are wrong. The data is the data; just because you don't like it does not mean that it was contrived for the sole purpose of upsetting you.

 

[kenmaynard]

Sure is dead in the science forum.

 

[Sparkey]

So I take your answer to mean that you won't agree to be pinned down to the range you quoted. Somehow that doesn't surprise me....

If this is a reply to my post, it still seems to be missing the point, as Barbarian has indicated.

Perhaps the point you tried to make is not the same point that I made. That's one possibility you don't seem to be willing to understand. What was your point? That creationists are wrong? Or were you actually trying to bring information that would help answer the question about how old the earth is? If that is the case, why squirm when I try to pin you down about the exact nature of your selected quote? Something along the lines of 160,000 (that's thousand, not million, right?) with a factor of +/- 15,000 years? Will you stand by that or will you continue to dodge the issue?

Seems simple to me. God make the earth in such a way that those of us who think they know the answer will be surprised when they actually find out. Fair enough?

~Sparrow

 

[kenmaynard]

So I take your answer to mean that you won't agree to be pinned down to the range you quoted. Somehow that doesn't surprise me....

If this is a reply to my post, it still seems to be missing the point, as Barbarian has indicated.

Perhaps the point you tried to make is not the same point that I made. That's one possibility you don't seem to be willing to understand. What was your point? That creationists are wrong? Or were you actually trying to bring information that would help answer the question about how old the earth is? If that is the case, why squirm when I try to pin you down about the exact nature of your selected quote? Something along the lines of 160,000 (that's thousand, not million, right?) with a factor of +/- 15,000 years? Will you stand by that or will you continue to dodge the issue?

Seems simple to me. God make the earth in such a way that those of us who think they know the answer will be surprised when they actually find out. Fair enough?

~Sparrow

I think you are trying to avoid discussing the point of the entire thread. The different ages were simply demonstrating the different ages of the things being tested. A glacier can't be 170,000 years old if the earth is 6000. A fossil can't be 36,000 years old if the earth is 6,000. A tree can't be 8,000 years old if the earth is 6,000. I think you understand the point of the thread, and the article, but are being dense on purpose.

 

[kenmaynard]

So I take your answer to mean that you won't agree to be pinned down to the range you quoted. Somehow that doesn't surprise me....

If this is a reply to my post, it still seems to be missing the point, as Barbarian has indicated.

Perhaps the point you tried to make is not the same point that I made. That's one possibility you don't seem to be willing to understand. What was your point? That creationists are wrong? Or were you actually trying to bring information that would help answer the question about how old the earth is? If that is the case, why squirm when I try to pin you down about the exact nature of your selected quote? Something along the lines of 160,000 (that's thousand, not million, right?) with a factor of +/- 15,000 years? Will you stand by that or will you continue to dodge the issue?

Seems simple to me. God make the earth in such a way that those of us who think they know the answer will be surprised when they actually find out. Fair enough?

~Sparrow

I think you are trying to avoid discussing the point of the entire thread. The different ages were simply demonstrating the different ages of the things being tested. A glacier can't be 170,000 years old if the earth is 6000. A fossil can't be 36,000 years old if the earth is 6,000. A tree can't be 8,000 years old if the earth is 6,000. I think you understand the point of the thread, and the article, but are being dense on purpose.

 

[kenmaynard]

So I take your answer to mean that you won't agree to be pinned down to the range you quoted. Somehow that doesn't surprise me....

If this is a reply to my post, it still seems to be missing the point, as Barbarian has indicated.

Perhaps the point you tried to make is not the same point that I made. That's one possibility you don't seem to be willing to understand. What was your point? That creationists are wrong? Or were you actually trying to bring information that would help answer the question about how old the earth is? If that is the case, why squirm when I try to pin you down about the exact nature of your selected quote? Something along the lines of 160,000 (that's thousand, not million, right?) with a factor of +/- 15,000 years? Will you stand by that or will you continue to dodge the issue?

Seems simple to me. God make the earth in such a way that those of us who think they know the answer will be surprised when they actually find out. Fair enough?

~Sparrow

I think you are trying to avoid discussing the point of the entire thread. The different ages were simply demonstrating the different ages of the things being tested. A glacier can't be 170,000 years old if the earth is 6000. A fossil can't be 36,000 years old if the earth is 6,000. A tree can't be 8,000 years old if the earth is 6,000. I think you understand the point of the thread, and the article, but are being dense on purpose.

 

[lordkalvan]

Perhaps the point you tried to make is not the same point that I made.

I never said it was. I was trying to show that the apparent argument you made in response to Ken's OP (not mine) seemed to be based on a misapprehension.

That's one possibility you don't seem to be willing to understand.

So what was your point? That because different dating methodologies using different metrics and different processes return different dates for the distances into the past that different phenomena can be traced, then all those methodologies must be wrong? That they could only be right if they returned a date no greater than 6,000-10,000 years into the past? Don't be coy, you can tell us.

What was your point?

The main point was that different natural phenomena have different ages within a much greater age, if that makes sense. In other words an age for natural features on Earth that date to around 145,000 years old, for example, does not mean that Earth is also 145,000 years old - only that it must be at least 145,000 years old. This seems a relatively simple concept to grasp.

That creationists are wrong?

That was a secondary point and is relevant to YE creationists' time-frame only. If there is persuasive evidence that Earth is older than 6,000-10,000 years old, then YE creationist assertions are clearly in error.

Or were you actually trying to bring information that would help answer the question about how old the earth is?

You seem to be the one having issues with the information Ken posted; I suggest you bring some criticisms of the relevant metrics to the table and we can discuss them.

If that is the case, why squirm when I try to pin you down about the exact nature of your selected quote?

Not my quote, sorry. You need to pay attention to who is posting what. You may find this site on the GRIP Core informative:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ ... /document/

Something along the lines of 160,000 (that's thousand, not million, right?) with a factor of +/- 15,000 years? Will you stand by that or will you continue to dodge the issue?

I don't know what your point is and what you imagine I am dodging. A minimum age is not the same as a maximum age. That is a fairly simple concept to grasp.

Seems simple to me. God make the earth in such a way that those of us who think they know the answer will be surprised when they actually find out. Fair enough?

You need to be more specific. What is the 'way' and what is it that you think you 'know' about that 'way' that apparently leads you to be surprised by the data Ken posted?

 

[Sparkey]

You need to pay attention to who is posting what.

Your allegation now is that I wasn't paying attention when the following observation was made???

Another point is that I've noticed that you two like to double team creationists where one makes a silly statement such as the earth is less than 175,000 years old and then the other chimes in with the blithe responses trying as hard as he might to (and again) prove the only point to the argument, that is, Creationists are wrong.

Pretend that you can't understand me as much as you like. Call me dense also (was it really necessary to post it three times? ) It doesn't matter. The very fact that you chose to quote a Wiki source that also mentions a certain "VenomTubeX" dude speaks volumes about both you and your source.

Let's look at the selected quote again, shall we?

Here is a nice sycinct [sic] article on some but not all the evidence for an old earth. It encompasses many areas of science.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_a ... t_creation

Here is just one section
....
Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an error rate of over 1000%, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young earth creationists.

Now tell me, if you would, what does the phrase "greatest number of layers" indicate to you? Is this something you interpret to establish the minimum age? It sure sounds like that is what you mean when you say things like, "only that it must be at least 145,000 years old," doesn't it? If there were, let's say, 800,000 layers (a greater number) would you not agree that this (according to the premise of the article) indicate an older earth? How then can you conclude that they are trying to establish a "minimum" age? It makes no sense.

My unanswered observation was that there was no agreement, no consensus found amongst the various authors of the WIKI article. I am surprised that you choose to defend such as any example of "scientific writings" or give that much credence to it. But, since this is the source that was brought to the Forum here, my other unanswered observation was that those who assert such "knowledge" never, and I mean never agree to be pinned down to their "facts" (so-called).

Let me ask again, do you agree with the article as quoted or no? Let's expand the data as far in the direction of "older earth" as we possibly can. Now let me ask you: Is the earth less than 700,000 years old? Or is there something rotten in the state of Denmark? My point is that you refuse and continue to refuse to be pinned down on anything you state or select. Yes or no, please. Is this the upper age of the earth? The article under discussion directly states, "Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000," it goes on to state that it is possible that 2 layers "could" have formed in a single year, but let's ignore that. Let's call it 800,000 layers and limit it so that there were no double or triple layered years. Is the age of the earth less than 1 million years old as the selected article states?

Where is the consensus? Where is the willingness to be held accountable to the statement(s) that are asserted? I find zero evidence of either. None in the article certainly and none here on the forum. Frankly, I am not surprised.

~Sparrowhawke