[_ Old Earth _] Evidence for an old earth

[lordkalvan]

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???

No, my point was that you appear to be confusing my posts with Ken's - unless, of course, you suspect that Ken and I are the same person.

Another point is that I've noticed that you two like to double team creationists...

I would like to see you support this particular accusation with references.

....where one makes a silly statement such as the earth is less than 175,000 years old...

I don't know who you are accusing of making silly statements. As far as I am aware neither of us has stated 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 YE creationists are wrong about the age of Earth, then they're wrong. It's not very hard to show this.

Pretend that you can't understand me as much as you like.

No pretense, I'm afraid. I know that I don't always post things as clearly as I should, or that my meaning - though obvious to me - may not be so obvious to others.

Call me dense also (was it really necessary to post it three times? ) It doesn't matter.

If you believe that I have called you dense, I apologize - it was not my intention so to do. However, I have not posted anything three times. Again, I am not the same person as Ken.

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.

I have not quoted a Wiki source in the context in which you are suggesting I have quoted a Wiki source.

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

[quote:i9afhsim]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

[/quote:i9afhsim]
Sorry, not my selected quote; I was only commenting on your response to the post that contained it.

[quote:i9afhsim]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? [/quote:i9afhsim]
It indicates that the greatest number of layers is the figure indicated; this figure may or may not have been revised since the reference was posted.

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?

Assuming the calculation is not greatly in error, then the fact that observed and measured ice layers in a continuously deposited series of ice layers indicate that the earliest of those ice layers was laid down at least 145,000 years ago, then the minimum age for Earth using that metric must be at least 145,000 years.

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?

As baldly stated in this proposition, more ice layers would indicate a minimum age for Earth greater than the minimum age indicated by fewer layers.

How then can you conclude that they are trying to establish a "minimum" age? It makes no sense.

The conclusion you draw from the foregoing is what doesn't make sense. As far as I am aware. nowhere did I say that the purpose of the ice layer studies was to attempt to establish a minimum age for anything (except for the ice layers themselves and the ice sheets of which they form a part). The minimum age for Earth that I referred to is a logical consequence of the data returned by the research into ice layers.

My unanswered observation was that there was no agreement, no consensus found amongst the various authors of the WIKI article.

And my unanswered observation was why would you expect such a consensus amongst different dating metrics, using different methodologies and examining different phenomena? Your argument does not seem to be coherent to me, but then perhaps I am misunderstanding it entirely.

I am surprised that you choose to defend such as any example of "scientific writings" or give that much credence to it.

If you are surprised that different dating metrics, using different methodologies and examining different phenomena return different maximum dates for the time into the past that they can usefully return meaningful results, then I can only presume you are unfamiliar with the scientific methodologies that underpin those metrics. Carbon-14 dating cannot measure reliably dates into the past earlier than 50,000 years BP; varve sequences and ice core layers can. Why would you expect the three different metrics to return a a broad-spectrum consensus? Of course, where ice layers and varve sequences can be cross-checked with Carbon-14 dating they are consilient.

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).

What 'facts' would you like me to 'pinned down' to? I think I have made my understanding quite clear.

Let me ask again, do you agree with the article as quoted or no?

Do you mean, do I agree with the general tenor of the observations therein? If this is your question, then I would answer that generally, yes, I do agree with it.

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?

As we appear to be discussing only Ken's OP at this stage, the information there indicates that the minimum age of Earth is between 145,000 years (supposing individual ice layers to be deposited on average more frequently than once a year) and 700,000 years (assuming ice layers to be deposited on average only once per year).

Or is there something rotten in the state of Denmark?

What do you find fishy? I really don't understand your argument at all.

My point is that you refuse and continue to refuse to be pinned down on anything you state or select.

How do you derive this understanding from my posts? All I have stated is that the data returned from different metrics that indicate earth is older than 6,000-10,000 years directly contradict YE creationist assertions that it is not.

Yes or no, please. Is this the upper age of the earth?

Let me say this again, determination of what a minimum age could be does not delimit what the maximum age may be. In the context of what you are asking, your question makes no sense.

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?

No, the article does not state that the age of Earth is less than one million years. It gives information from which a MINIMUM age can be derived. The conclusion that can be drawn from your rephrasing of the article's premises is that the age of Earth is AT LEAST 800,000 years old.

Where is the consensus?

What consensus do you expect to see? There is consilience across a broad range of independent dating metrics; I am happy to discuss that consilience and the methodologies that support the individual metrics as you wish.

Where is the willingness to be held accountable to the statement(s) that are asserted?

You are demanding accountability to a misleading restating of the original proposition that is not supported by the OP as given.

I find zero evidence of either.

What you see is zero agreement with your restating of the proposition in a way that is directly contra to what it actually says.

None in the article certainly and none here on the forum.

Why would you expect the article to support your misleading reinterpretation of what it actually says. Why would you expect posters to do anything other than point out that your misleading reinterpretation is flat-out wrong.

Frankly, I am not surprised.

Frankly, I am nothing but puzzled at what you are trying to get at.

 

[kenmaynard]

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

There is scientific consensus, and it it that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Also the you misrepresent what the dating of an ice sheet means. When scientists date an ice sheet they are checking the age of the ice sheet not the whole earth. Ice sheets form and melt. This particular one has been around longer than what young earthers say the whole earth is supposed to be.

 

[Sparkey]

I guess your statements constitute proof then?

Your assertion that there is "consensus" only affirms my statement. The ONLY thing that article was trying to prove was that somebody else was wrong. The various "ages" of the earth were not in agreement. Show me where they were (even a single instance) if you wish to persist in your argument against my assertion. When I said they (the various contributors of the Wiki article) had yet to reach consensus my only point was that they (and you) refuse to be pinned down about a definition about the age of the earth.

You continue to squirm and struggle about the obvious. There is no consensus regarding the actual date of creation. Even if we try to take God out of the picture (something I'm not willing to do because I don't want to pretend, not even for the 'sake of the argument') and even if we agree that the things we observe can define for us the actual age of the earth - there is still no agreement.

Obtaining a consensus of opinion means a general agreement or accord. Pointing to the "evidence" by one study that declares the earth is less than 1 million years old, while at the same time alleging that the earth is over 16 billions of years old is hardly a consensus.

"Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced"

• Amino acid racemization: "objects can be dated up to several million years old"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
• Baptistina asteroid family: "original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
• Coral: "growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
• Continental drift: "going on for at least 200 million years"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
• Cosmogenic nuclide dating: "objects over millions of years old"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
• Dendrochronology: "tree ring chronology can be pushed back in some cases as far as 11,000 years" [/*:m:27afbx3x]
• Distant starlight: "stars there as they were over ten billion years ago"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
• Erosion: "erosion taking place over very long time periods"
  [list:27afbx3x]Note: The article seems to cite "VenomFangX" of youtube fame as an expert?!?

[/*:m:27afbx3x]
[*]Fission track dating: "fission tracks correlates to the age of the object"

• Note: The article leaves the age unstated[/*:m:27afbx3x]

[/*:m:27afbx3x]
[*]Geomagnetic reversals: "once every 50,000 to 800,000 years"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
[*]Helioseismology: [age of our sun] "4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
[*]Human Y-chromosomal ancestry: "man lived around 60,000 years ago"[/*:m:27afbx3x]
[*]Your quoted 'new' ice layering method: "160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years)"
[attachment=0:27afbx3x]IceLayering.jpg[/attachment:27afbx3x][/*:m:27afbx3x]
[*]Iron-manganese nodule growth: "several million years to form one centimeter"

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

[/*:m:27afbx3x][/list:u:27afbx3x]
[*]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.

Pray, read again the various "ages" that the article in question quotes and suggests. Then try (after listing them for yourself) to state that there is "consensus". Opposing a straw-man version of my assertion does nothing to convince others. I can't even think that you believe what you're saying because I give you more credit than that.

Even with the equivocation parameters expressed in the (+/-) date ranges there is little if any overlap. Without any agreement between the individual studies, and I mean zero agreement about results --> how can there be any assertion of consensus? The results are all over the place. One "study" shows a result of 160 million years for instance. The date range has a (+/-) factor of 20 million years! So that particular study agrees with the one you selected (the ice layer count), does it??? It does not. There is no agreement to be found even when the ranges are extended to their furthest limit. The question about agreement could be rephrased. Mathematically speaking, is 160 thousand years. (+/- 15,000 years) == 160 (±20) million years? Does the definition you insist on include being "off" by a factor of 1000 or so? Go on, admit it -- the results of the various studies the article you mention fall short of the requirements for any reasonable person to say, "Urethra! We have found it! We have achieved an accord! There indeed is finally agreement between two studies!!"


~Sparrow

 

[kenmaynard]

I guess your statements constitute proof then?

Your assertion that there is "consensus" only affirms my statement. The ONLY thing that article was trying to prove was that somebody else was wrong. The various "ages" of the earth were not in agreement. Show me where they were (even a single instance) if you wish to persist in your argument against my assertion. When I said they (the various contributors of the Wiki article) had yet to reach consensus my only point was that they (and you) refuse to be pinned down about a definition about the age of the earth.

You continue to squirm and struggle about the obvious. There is no consensus regarding the actual date of creation. Even if we try to take God out of the picture (something I'm not willing to do because I don't want to pretend, not even for the 'sake of the argument') and even if we agree that the things we observe can define for us the actual age of the earth - there is still no agreement.

Obtaining a consensus of opinion means a general agreement or accord. Pointing to the "evidence" by one study that declares the earth is less than 1 million years old, while at the same time alleging that the earth is over 16 billions of years old is hardly a consensus.

"Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced"

• Amino acid racemization: "objects can be dated up to several million years old"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
• Baptistina asteroid family: "original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
• Coral: "growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
• Continental drift: "going on for at least 200 million years"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
• Cosmogenic nuclide dating: "objects over millions of years old"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
• Dendrochronology: "tree ring chronology can be pushed back in some cases as far as 11,000 years" [/*:m:11jw8kvq]
• Distant starlight: "stars there as they were over ten billion years ago"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
• Erosion: "erosion taking place over very long time periods"
  [list:11jw8kvq]Note: The article seems to cite "VenomFangX" of youtube fame as an expert?!?

[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
[*]Fission track dating: "fission tracks correlates to the age of the object"

• Note: The article leaves the age unstated[/*:m:11jw8kvq]

[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
[*]Geomagnetic reversals: "once every 50,000 to 800,000 years"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
[*]Helioseismology: [age of our sun] "4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
[*]Human Y-chromosomal ancestry: "man lived around 60,000 years ago"[/*:m:11jw8kvq]
[*]Your quoted 'new' ice layering method: "160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years)"
[attachment=0:11jw8kvq]IceLayering.jpg[/attachment:11jw8kvq][/*:m:11jw8kvq]
[*]Iron-manganese nodule growth: "several million years to form one centimeter"

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

[/*:m:11jw8kvq][/list:u:11jw8kvq]
[*]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.

Pray, read again the various "ages" that the article in question quotes and suggests. Then try (after listing them for yourself) to state that there is "consensus". Opposing a straw-man version of my assertion does nothing to convince others. I can't even think that you believe what you're saying because I give you more credit than that.

Even with the equivocation parameters expressed in the (+/-) date ranges there is little if any overlap. Without any agreement between the individual studies, and I mean zero agreement about results --> how can there be any assertion of consensus? The results are all over the place. One "study" shows a result of 160 million years for instance. The date range has a (+/-) factor of 20 million years! So that particular study agrees with the one you selected (the ice layer count), does it??? It does not. There is no agreement to be found even when the ranges are extended to their furthest limit. The question about agreement could be rephrased. Mathematically speaking, is 160 thousand years. (+/- 15,000 years) == 160 (±20) million years? Does the definition you insist on include being "off" by a factor of 1000 or so? Go on, admit it -- the results of the various studies the article you mention fall short of the requirements for any reasonable person to say, "Urethra! We have found it! We have achieved an accord! There indeed is finally agreement between two studies!!"


~Sparrow

I can't tell if you are being intentionally dense or not. The article was indeed trying to prove that young eathers are wrong. Yes that was the point of the article.

It did not give multiple ages for the earth. It gave ages for many things, all of the things were older than 6,000 years. So if you can't comprehend what the article says I guess there is no discussion to have because it is just over your head.

 

[Sparkey]

I can't tell if you are being intentionally dense or not.
...
I guess there is no discussion to have because it is just over your head.

@KENMAYNARD: The top of the page contains three posts all ending by calling me dense.
ad hominem attacks are made "to the man" and not the argument. You would do well to avoid these logical fallacies.

@KENMAYNARD: You now declare the discussion over. Thank you, that will save me the trouble of appealing to others to get you to stop the personal attack. By the way, you're the one who selected the ice layering portion of the article you quoted, not I. You chose the title of the thread, again, not I. What were you thinking? No need to reply there - I'll agree with your suggestion that we don't talk about it anymore. Your thoughts are over my head, as you say.

IN GENERAL: Pardon my being stupid, dull and slow witted, if you would.

@KENMAYNARD & IN GENERAL (as it applies): But in any case, I've noticed that when you encounter resistance to your thoughts you start name calling. That's something that should not be done let alone tolerated.

If you believe that I have called you dense, I apologize - it was not my intention so to do. However, I have not posted anything three times. Again, I am not the same person as Ken.

@ LORDKALVAN: Pardon me, I stand corrected. I was trying to address various things posted in a single thread and didn't pay careful attention specifically addressing each comment that I made.

IN GENERAL: It seemed reasonable to me that if I objected to somebody who called me dense, and somebody else read it (who did not in fact make any personal attack), they (the innocent) would have enough sense to figure it out. Since you've taken offense at my mistake, please also take this as an apology. In addition - when I apologize to others you can feel the comfort just as if I apologized to you, okay?

@LORDKALVAN: Let me start again then, when you said, "This does not mean there is an inconsistency or lack of consensus as you call it," in your second posting in this thread, did you mean that there was no inconsistency nor lack of consensus? Or were you merely in agreement with my primary assertion that the only purpose I could figure out about it was the general purpose expressed in my criticism:

"Forget 'bout Science - let's git dem dang creationismists good".

~Sparrow

In the future and going forward I'll try to make myself more clear - especially when I make general remarks after having quoted somebody. I do understand that this habit (of quoting one person then going on to make general remarks in thread later) is not conducive to clarity but I would also remind you that if it's clear to you that you were not the one being spoken to in the remark? Ignoring it is also an option. /duh

 

[lordkalvan]

If you believe that I have called you dense, I apologize - it was not my intention so to do. However, I have not posted anything three times. Again, I am not the same person as Ken.

@ LORDKALVAN: Pardon me, I stand corrected. I was trying to address various things posted in a single thread and didn't pay careful attention specifically addressing each comment that I made.

IN GENERAL: It seemed reasonable to me that if I objected to somebody who called me dense, and somebody else read it (who did not in fact make any personal attack), they (the innocent) would have enough sense to figure it out. Since you've taken offense at my mistake, please also take this as an apology. In addition - when I apologize to others you can feel the comfort just as if I apologized to you, okay?

I have not taken offense at your mistake, so no apology necessary on that front; I only wished to point out that you seemed to have confused who had posted what.

By the way, why is a comment relating to apparent denseness in the content of a post any more of an ad hominem than comments about silly statements, making blithe responses, being unwilling to understand and squirming?

@LORDKALVAN: Let me start again then, when you said, "This does not mean there is an inconsistency or lack of consensus as you call it," in your second posting in this thread, did you mean that there was no inconsistency nor lack of consensus?

I meant what I said in the context that I understood your post to which it was a reply. This is partly because I do not understand what you expect from different dating methodologies. Let me give you a theoretical example of what I mean:

Suppose there are four independent dating methodologies which use different processes to return ages for material they contain or consist of.

Method A can date material up to 10,000 years old.

Method B can date material up to 100,000 years old.

Method C can date material up to 1,000,000 years old.

Method D can date material up to 10.000,000 years old.

All four methodologies are used to date the same material. Method A returns a date of 7,500 years +/-100 years; Method B returns a date of 8,000 years +/-400 years, Method C returns a date of 7,800 years +/-200 years and Method D returns a date of 7,700 years +/-250 years.

Even though Method B can date material to much later than Method A, Method C to much later than Method B, and Method D to much later than Method C, they are consilient because they return similar dates for material of a particular age, thereby displaying both consistency and a consensus. Hence my statement that you have quoted.

Or were you merely in agreement with my primary assertion that the only purpose I could figure out about it was the general purpose expressed in my criticism:
[quote:d3jsizhe]"Forget 'bout Science - let's git dem dang creationismists good".

[/quote:d3jsizhe]
No, I did not agree with your criticism because the article has not 'forgotten' about science. It has used the results of scientific methods and processes to criticize an understanding of the age of Earth that is demonstrably in error. Opinions published, espoused and advocated in the public domain have opened themselves to the scrutiny of debate and criticism and should expect to attract comment from those who believe those opinions to be wrongly held. If those who hold such opinions are offended when they attract robust criticism then they should not espouse them so openly.

In the future and going forward I'll try to make myself more clear - especially when I make general remarks after having quoted somebody. I do understand that this habit (of quoting one person then going on to make general remarks in thread later) is not conducive to clarity but I would also remind you that if it's clear to you that you were not the one being spoken to in the remark? Ignoring it is also an option.

This would indeed be an option if it is clear that I am not the one being directly addressed, but where I am quite clearly the one being addressed (and confused with another), a response is almost irresistible. It is also the case that any comment made in a public forum, regardless of to whom it is addressed, is inviting comments from anyone who wishes to make them.

 

[lordkalvan]

...There is no consensus regarding the actual date of creation.

What do you mean by 'the actual date of creation'? Do you mean to the exact minute, hour, day and year, relative to our dating conventions? If so, why would you expect such precision? Otherwise, there is a general scientific consensus as to the age of Earth and Solar System at around 4.54 billion years (Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html); the age of theUniverse is generally understood to be around 13.7 billion years (Source: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html).

Even if we try to take God out of the picture (something I'm not willing to do because I don't want to pretend, not even for the 'sake of the argument') and even if we agree that the things we observe can define for us the actual age of the earth - there is still no agreement.

Generally, there is. The disagreement is in the details.

Obtaining a consensus of opinion means a general agreement or accord. Pointing to the "evidence" by one study that declares the earth is less than 1 million years old, while at the same time alleging that the earth is over 16 billions of years old is hardly a consensus.

Again, a MINIMUM age is not the same as delimiting the oldest that something might be. If someone estimated my age as being at least 40, that does not mean that I am not actually 50. By the way, where did you derive a figure of 16 billion years as Earth's age?

• Amino acid racemization: "objects can be dated up to several million years old"[/*:m:dw897z81]
• Baptistina asteroid family: "original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago"[/*:m:dw897z81]
• Coral: "growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years"[/*:m:dw897z81]
• Continental drift: "going on for at least 200 million years"[/*:m:dw897z81]
• Cosmogenic nuclide dating: "objects over millions of years old"[/*:m:dw897z81]
• Dendrochronology: "tree ring chronology can be pushed back in some cases as far as 11,000 years" [/*:m:dw897z81]
• Distant starlight: "stars there as they were over ten billion years ago"[/*:m:dw897z81]
• Erosion: "erosion taking place over very long time periods"
  [list:dw897z81]Note: The article seems to cite "VenomFangX" of youtube fame as an expert?!?

[/*:m:dw897z81]
[*]Fission track dating: "fission tracks correlates to the age of the object"

• Note: The article leaves the age unstated[/*:m:dw897z81]

[/*:m:dw897z81]
[*]Geomagnetic reversals: "once every 50,000 to 800,000 years"[/*:m:dw897z81]
[*]Helioseismology: [age of our sun] "4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years"[/*:m:dw897z81]
[*]Human Y-chromosomal ancestry: "man lived around 60,000 years ago"[/*:m:dw897z81]
[*]Your quoted 'new' ice layering method: "160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years)"
[attachment=0:dw897z81]IceLayering.jpg[/attachment:dw897z81][/*:m:dw897z81]
[*]Iron-manganese nodule growth: "several million years to form one centimeter"

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

[/*:m:dw897z81][/list:u:dw897z81]
[*]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.

You seem to be using the word consensus in a rather idiosyncratic way in the context of your argument, i.e. to suggest that different dating methodologies using different processes should return the same dates for all observed phenomena. As certain dating methodologies are limited as to the distances into the past which they can measure, your demand for consensus across these methodologies only seems to reflect an ill-informed understanding of those methodologies.

Pray, read again the various "ages" that the article in question quotes and suggests. Then try (after listing them for yourself) to state that there is "consensus".

The consensus is in respect of the minimum age of Earth that those methodologies indicate it could be. If different biological measures of my physiology return different ages for what I might be, from those measurements my minimum age is fixed at the lowest age that one of those measurements returns; if the other measurements return greater ages, then the consensus agrees as to what my minimum age must be.

Even with the equivocation parameters expressed in the (+/-) date ranges there is little if any overlap.

Error bars are not 'equivocation parameters', they are statements of accuracy within defined and statistically measurable standard deviations.

Without any agreement between the individual studies, and I mean zero agreement about results --> how can there be any assertion of consensus?

You are creating an illusory argument. The consensus is in respect of a minimum age that can be calculated.

The results are all over the place. One "study" shows a result of 160 million years for instance. The date range has a (+/-) factor of 20 million years!

It's because they're measuring different phenomena. The clue is in the fact that not all phenomena have the same age. You are not as the same age as your father or your children - and yet your father must be at least as old as your children.

So that particular study agrees with the one you selected (the ice layer count), does it???

It agrees about what the minimum age of both phenomena considered together must be. You must be at least as old as your children.

It does not.

It agrees what the minimum age might be. Why would you suppose different phenomena must have the same maximum age? Do you suppose your children must be the same age as you?

There is no agreement to be found even when the ranges are extended to their furthest limit.

If I understand your complaint correctly, why should there be? Why should your children be as old as you?

The question about agreement could be rephrased. Mathematically speaking, is 160 thousand years. (+/- 15,000 years) == 160 (±20) million years?

The correct formulation would be 160,000,000 (+/- 20,000,000) > 160,000 (+/- 15,000). If X is at least 140,000,000 years old and Y is at least 145,000 years old and both are still in existence at the same time, it follows than X must also be at least 145,000 years old. If you believe otherwise, please explain how the contrary could be shown to be the case.

Does the definition you insist on include being "off" by a factor of 1000 or so?

Your arguments seem to be founded on a fundamental misunderstanding, whether intentional or otherwise I am unable to say.

Go on, admit it -- the results of the various studies the article you mention fall short of the requirements for any reasonable person to say, "Urethra! We have found it! We have achieved an accord! There indeed is finally agreement between two studies!!"

Urethra? There is indeed agreement amongst more than two studies about what a minimum age for a given something may be based on shared existence with other things whose ages can be measured.

 

[Sparkey]

If I understand your complaint correctly, why should there be? Why should your children be as old as you?

You've read the article, right?
How old does it declare the earth to be? Your answer is welcome.
The answer, "Older than you, Sparrow," although true, is not very satisfying.

After your analysis of the statements made in the article and your response to the above question we can discuss the credentials of the contributors. Are you certain that they are respected and esteemed members of what you would "deem" the scientific community?

 

[Sparkey]

IN GENERAL: It seemed reasonable to me that if I objected to somebody who called me dense, and somebody else read it (who did not in fact make any personal attack), they (the innocent) would have enough sense to figure it out. Since you've taken offense at my mistake, please also take this as an apology. In addition - when I apologize to others you can feel the comfort just as if I apologized to you, okay?

I have not taken offense at your mistake, so no apology necessary on that front; I only wished to point out that you seemed to have confused who had posted what.

By the way, why is a comment relating to apparent denseness in the content of a post any more of an ad hominem than comments about silly statements, making blithe responses, being unwilling to understand and squirming?

Almost any state of affairs, no matter how unfortunate, can be put in a positive or negative light without changing the factual significance of what is said. Surely you don't now wish to pretend that I must educate you about the difference between criticizing a remark or calling it silly or blithe or making a personal attack, do you? I can link the T.o.S. here if you'd like. That's clear enough, isn't it?

It's a problem of direction. The comment made and objected to was directed "at the man" and not at the opinion. Can you pretend that a remark apparently about the earth being 160k years old isn't silly by anyone's standards? What word other than silly would you use for a thread called "EVIDENCE for an old earth" and leads with Ice Layering implying that the earth is less than a million or so years old? Was it profound to you? Maybe. Just asking. I note that your term was "of interest" or some such thing.

The thread is about "evidence for an old earth". The Original Poster selected portion of the article concerned Ice Layering. I maintain that this specific quote from the article:
1) Does not establish the age of the earth. It certainly says nothing about an "OLD" earth. Oh! Maybe the OP titled the thread, "Evidence for an odd earth" ----> nope! I checked: "old earth," yep.
2) Is a poor example and a poor choice from amongst dozens of other points from within the same article which in my opinion could have been better suited to the topic.
3) Is not in agreement with the general statements of the scientific community regarding the title of this thread, that is: "EVIDENCE for an old earth"
4) I concluded that this was included in the article and also was selected by the OP for the specific purpose of trying to show others (Creationists) to be wrong.

I further maintain my initial statements about the general unwillingness of my worthy opponents to be pinned down about any specific age of the earth. No one here has made any assertions about their opinion other than me. No one here has stated a general age range for the age of the earth other than in the thread title. "Old" can be used to described many things, myself included. I don't think that the "evidence" selected and quoted is relevant to the topic and to that effect have asked repeatedly, "How old is the earth," and "Would you agree that the "Greatest Possible Number of Layers of Ice" per the study is not in direct accord nor in direct agreement with the general statements of the scientific community.

The comments that I have made are being born out again and again in the thread. Where is the willingness to be "pinned" down? Where are the direct statements about the evidence of an OLD earth? Where are the direct statements about the age? Point to them if you've answered and show me where there is consensus about the age of the earth and how it can be alleged from within the selected quote. If you say that the statements about Ice Layering reflect and OLD earth, please show me how.

Again, I did not title the thread. I did not select that portion of the article. I have observed that this was a poor choice but no admission nor concession has been made and I suspect it is not forthcoming. A simple statement such as, "Yeah, I see your point - that might not have been the best part of the article to lead with," or "Okay, you're right. Wiki isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal," or "There may be some confusion about things you read but understand that the scientific community is constantly making discoveries and Wiki might not have the most recent information available," or ANY other such thing would be welcome here.

What I have encountered here is quite the polar opposite to the above. There are direct oppositional statements and contradictions at ever turn. May I ask why? Why do you quote my posts and then pull them apart? Why not simply answer the questions asked in accord with the thread topic? Why not reply or address my observations about the relevance of ice layering and the OLD (so called) earth.


I don't have a problem with being at odds with others. It is perfectly okay for somebody to not agree with me. My point is that there is no agreement regarding "facts" (so called) and implications on the side of those who wish to throw stones at Creationists.

~Sparrowhawke

 

[lordkalvan]

You've read the article, right?

Indeed.

How old does it declare the earth to be? Your answer is welcome.

My understanding is that the article is not directed towards decaring how old Earth is, only what the minimum age is as derived from various areas of scientific enquiry.

The answer, "Older than you, Sparrow," although true, is not very satisfying.

Which is not an answer I have given, although circumstantial evidence would indicate that this statement is correct.

After your analysis of the statements made in the article and your response to the above question we can discuss the credentials of the contributors.

Do you mean the person(s) who submitted the article or do you mean the individuals whose work is cited in the references and from whose publications the article draws its information?

Are you certain that they are respected and esteemed members of what you would "deem" the scientific community?

I have no knowledge of the background(s) of the poster(s) of the article. As far as the listed references are concerned, for example, A. Bonanno is a member of the INAF at the Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania at Citta Universitaria in Italy; H. Schlattl is a member of the Astrophysics Research Institute at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK; and L. Patern is a member of the Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia dell'Universita, Sezione Astrofisica at Citta Universitaria in Italy and the article attributed to them was published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, so on the face of it they do indeed appear to be 'members of...the scientific community', although whether 'respected and esteemed' as well, I could not say.

 

[lordkalvan]

Almost any state of affairs, no matter how unfortunate, can be put in a positive or negative light without changing the factual significance of what is said. Surely you don't now wish to pretend that I must educate you about the difference between criticizing a remark or calling it silly or blithe or making a personal attack, do you? I can link the T.o.S. here if you'd like. That's clear enough, isn't it?

Oh dear, so now I am 'pretending' that I don't understand the difference between a personal attack and criticizing a remark. Well, as I obviously need you to educate me, perhaps you could explain how suggesting an appearance of denseness about a subject based on the content of a post is any more of a personal attack on someone than is a suggestion that they are squirming when an attempt is made to try to pin them down?

It's a problem of direction. The comment made and objected to was directed "at the man" and not at the opinion.

So was the 'squirming' remark directed at the man or the comment?

Can you pretend that a remark apparently about the earth being 160k years old isn't silly by anyone's standards?

I can note that your apparent misunderstanding of what the observation indicates is silly. If I say that Earth is at least 160,000 years old, this is not the same as saying that it is no more than 160,000 years old. I do not understand why you do not seem to grasp what seems to me to be a fairly straightforward distinction.

What word other than silly would you use for a thread called "EVIDENCE for an old earth" and leads with Ice Layering implying that the earth is less than a million or so years old?

Apart from the fact that the quoted article does not imply that Earth 'is less than a million or so years old' and that this is just the gloss you have chosen to put on the reference that it does not argue, a question that would need to be raised in order to deal with your point is what you understand by the words old and young. If, for example, you were to believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old, a suggestion that it was at least 25 times older than this age would, relatively speaking, suggest that Earth is old rather than young.

Was it profound to you? Maybe. Just asking.

Not asking anything of any relevance, as far as I can see. 'Profound' in respect of what? And what do you mean by 'profound', anyway?

I note that your term was "of interest" or some such thing.

So....?

The thread is about "evidence for an old earth". The Original Poster selected portion of the article concerned Ice Layering. I maintain that this specific quote from the article:
1) Does not establish the age of the earth. It certainly says nothing about an "OLD" earth. Oh! Maybe the OP titled the thread, "Evidence for an odd earth" ----> nope! I checked: "old earth," yep.

It does not claim to 'establish the age of the earth', it only establishes a range of minimum ages that Earth could be according to results from various research, many of which are not directly concerned with establishing what the age of Earth is anyway. And again, at what age do you think Earth could be considered 'old'? Unless you define your terms, it is difficult to know whether you regard 160,000 years old or not.

2) Is a poor example and a poor choice from amongst dozens of other points from within the same article which in my opinion could have been better suited to the topic.

It may be a poor example, but it still attests to the fact that arguments that Earth is only 6,000 years old must be erroneous, as does any of the other choices that could have been selected.

3) Is not in agreement with the general statements of the scientific community regarding the title of this thread, that is: "EVIDENCE for an old earth"

So what is it evidence for? It certainly isn't evidence for the idea that Earth is significantly less than 160,000 years old.

4) I concluded that this was included in the article and also was selected by the OP for the specific purpose of trying to show others (Creationists) to be wrong.

It was included in the article and selected for the OP for the stated purposes. My question would be, so what?

I further maintain my initial statements about the general unwillingness of my worthy opponents to be pinned down about any specific age of the earth.

I have already expressed a willingness to be 'pinned down', but you have to specify what you want me to be 'pinned down' to.

No one here has made any assertions about their opinion other than me. No one here has stated a general age range for the age of the earth other than in the thread title.

I have previously posted an age for Earth of about 4.54 billion years. This is an age I would argue in support of.

"Old" can be used to described many things, myself included. I don't think that the "evidence" selected and quoted is relevant to the topic....

So at what age do you regard Earth as becoming 'old'?

...and to that effect have asked repeatedly, "How old is the earth"...

I have given you an age.

...and "Would you agree that the "Greatest Possible Number of Layers of Ice" per the study is not in direct accord nor in direct agreement with the general statements of the scientific community.

It is an observation based on a scientific understanding and it is consilient with other data attesting to the antiquity of Earth. It is not nor is it intended or claimed to be a measure by which the absolute age of Earth can be determined.

The comments that I have made are being born out again and again in the thread. Where is the willingness to be "pinned" down?

Here.

Where are the direct statements about the evidence of an OLD earth?

Tell me what you mean by 'old'.

Where are the direct statements about the age?

Made.

Point to them if you've answered and show me where there is consensus about the age of the earth and how it can be alleged from within the selected quote.

The selected quote is not about determining the absolute age of Earth, therefore it has nothing to contribute to how old Earth is except to the extent of establishing at least how old it must be.

If you say that the statements about Ice Layering reflect and OLD earth, please show me how.

They reflect an Earth which is old in relation to the claims it is put forward as countering that Earth is only 6,000 years old. If you think otherwise, please explain how and why.

Again, I did not title the thread. I did not select that portion of the article. I have observed that this was a poor choice but no admission nor concession has been made and I suspect it is not forthcoming.

Insofar as the premises of your complaints are poorly founded, why should admissions or concessions be forthcoming as if your complaints were pertinent and relevant?

A simple statement such as, "Yeah, I see your point - that might not have been the best part of the article to lead with" ...

Well, it might be if your point was apposite, but as it isn't, why should there be?

...or "Okay, you're right. Wiki isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal"

That's a different argument, but many of the references from which the article draws would seem to be from peer-reviewed and/or 'reputable' sources. If the article was unreferenced and a compilation of unsupported assertion and assumption, you would have a stronger point.

....or "There may be some confusion about things you read but understand that the scientific community is constantly making discoveries and Wiki might not have the most recent information available," or ANY other such thing would be welcome here.

There is no confusion about the information published in the article. The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth is much greater than YE creationism suggests. The confusion seems to reside in your understanding of what the article is arguing.

What I have encountered here is quite the polar opposite to the above.

Posters will not agree with you if they believe you to be wrong or to have misunderstood something. That's what debate is about.

There are direct oppositional statements and contradictions at ever turn. May I ask why?

If posters disagree with you and think you are wrong or have misunderstood something, they will say so. Some may express their contrary opinions more strongly than others, but that's the rough and tumble of debate in a public forum

Why do you quote my posts and then pull them apart?

If I disagree with them, why shouldn't I?

Why not simply answer the questions asked in accord with the thread topic? Why not reply or address my observations about the relevance of ice layering and the OLD (so called) earth.

I thought I had. As I have said before, what seems to be obvious and clear to me in my posts may not be so obviously clear to those who read them. When asked I will be happy to expand my statements as best I can.

I don't have a problem with being at odds with others. It is perfectly okay for somebody to not agree with me.

Likewise. It wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

My point is that there is no agreement regarding "facts" (so called) and implications on the side of those who wish to throw stones at Creationists.

I think you will find there is broad agreement and minor disagreement amongst those who regard YE creationist timescales to be quite erroneous. As far as the stones are concerned, I suppose heat and kitchen come to mind.

 

[Sparkey]

The whole comment about "personal attack" was not directed at you in any way.
I have already given my apology to you for any confusion that I may have had and have not argued with your statement that I may have been confused between you and another poster.

If you really need to have the lessons of the ToS and "personal attack" be explained and the difference between saying that others can rightly be said to be squirming and avoiding answers, then fine. Report me. I don't mind. I'm certain that the leadership of the forum are capable and am willing to trust their decisions and admonishment.

But in any case it does not directly involve you now does it? Let it go.

~Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Evidence about WHAT???

Where are the direct statements about the evidence of an OLD earth?

Tell me what you mean by 'old'.

The question should rightly be directed at the person who used the term. Are you not trying to avoid again? Sure seems like it. Although you don't like it when I say you're squirming --the truth is an adequate defense. When I read what you write and see your persistent avoidance of the issues that I raise and your attempts to avoid them become almost laughable? What shall we say then?

The issues surrounding the topic that I've raised include the poor choice of "evidence" (so called) that is presented in topic to help establish the earth to be "old". I've stated that the only thing that the article tries to do is speak against Bible believing Creationists. I've pointed to the fact that there is no agreement to be found in the article about the age of the earth and that the quoted portion of the wiki article (which is a questionable source as well) only (at best) tries to establish the age of the earth to be less than one (1) million years old.

When you try to explain that "Ice Layering" proves that the ice is older than 6,000 (not the earth itself) years you confirm my 2nd point - that the article and that particular portion is merely trying to poke holes in what is commonly held to be the opinion of the believers. When you state that there is consensus but refuse to state what the alleged consensus is and avoid my continued questions and requests that you read the article and tell us exactly what your conclusions are - you prove my first thought, that a refusal to be pinned down is another common tactic.

You simply can not have it both ways, or all ways. Either there is consensus and the vast majority of scientists are in agreement and accord about specific dates or there isn't. When somebody pulls a section of an article to point to an apparent age of the earth to be less than the general consensus and then argues? It's silly. You know this. You do.

The selected quote is not about determining the absolute age of Earth, therefore it has nothing to contribute to how old Earth is except to the extent of establishing at least how old it must be.

Finally, Thank you. Now turn your view to the topic title. "Evidence for an old earth".

Now while you are looking at the title of THIS thread, consider your words:

The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth

I'll ask you why the argument seeks to establish the minimum age of the earth. Wait, maybe you've already answered:

There is no confusion about the information published in the article. The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth is much greater than YE creationism suggests.

So, then we agree. The article seeks only to show that the minimum age of the earth is much greater than YE creationism states. Voila! Eureka! I have found it. (My misquote earlier was from Kelly Bundy fame). Thank you again.

Now I can recall the first comment that you made:

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.

Now I can apologize about my comments about the two of you seemingly double teaming Creationists and take that back, if you wouldn't mind, and now I can definitely tell the two of you apart. Thank you again.

~Sparrow

PS - Please note that so far I've not stated my opinion [about the actual age of the earth] other than "I'm not certain, I wasn't there." That discussion would be better suited to a different thread.

 

[kenmaynard]

Re: Evidence about WHAT???

Where are the direct statements about the evidence of an OLD earth?

Tell me what you mean by 'old'.

The question should rightly be directed at the person who used the term. Are you not trying to avoid again? Sure seems like it. Although you don't like it when I say you're squirming --the truth is an adequate defense. When I read what you write and see your persistent avoidance of the issues that I raise and your attempts to avoid them become almost laughable? What shall we say then?

The issues surrounding the topic that I've raised include the poor choice of "evidence" (so called) that is presented in topic to help establish the earth to be "old". I've stated that the only thing that the article tries to do is speak against Bible believing Creationists. I've pointed to the fact that there is no agreement to be found in the article about the age of the earth and that the quoted portion of the wiki article (which is a questionable source as well) only (at best) tries to establish the age of the earth to be less than one (1) million years old.

When you try to explain that "Ice Layering" proves that the ice is older than 6,000 (not the earth itself) years you confirm my 2nd point - that the article and that particular portion is merely trying to poke holes in what is commonly held to be the opinion of the believers. When you state that there is consensus but refuse to state what the alleged consensus is and avoid my continued questions and requests that you read the article and tell us exactly what your conclusions are - you prove my first thought, that a refusal to be pinned down is another common tactic.

You simply can not have it both ways, or all ways. Either there is consensus and the vast majority of scientists are in agreement and accord about specific dates or there isn't. When somebody pulls a section of an article to point to an apparent age of the earth to be less than the general consensus and then argues? It's silly. You know this. You do.

[quote:31r40ydu]
The selected quote is not about determining the absolute age of Earth, therefore it has nothing to contribute to how old Earth is except to the extent of establishing at least how old it must be.

Finally, Thank you. Now turn your view to the topic title. "Evidence for an old earth".

Now while you are looking at the title of THIS thread, consider your words:

The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth

I'll ask you why the argument seeks to establish the minimum age of the earth. Wait, maybe you've already answered:

There is no confusion about the information published in the article. The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth is much greater than YE creationism suggests.

So, then we agree. The article seeks only to show that the minimum age of the earth is much greater than YE creationism states. Voila! Eureka! I have found it. (My misquote earlier was from Kelly Bundy fame). Thank you again.

Now I can recall the first comment that you made:

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.

Now I can apologize about my comments about the two of you seemingly double teaming Creationists and take that back, if you wouldn't mind, and now I can definitely tell the two of you apart. Thank you again.

~Sparrow

PS - Please note that so far I've not stated my opinion [about the actual age of the earth] other than "I'm not certain, I wasn't there." That discussion would be better suited to a different thread. [/quote:31r40ydu]


Old earth means older than the 6,000 to 10,000 years young earthers say it is. Stop pretending to not understand the point of the article or the arguments it presents. I will not treat you like the illogical grandpa type you try to present yourself as. You have a brain and use it. Your arguments are lies on their face. Either take part in a real discussion or don't, but your currently pretending too be stupid to hold a discussion doesn't suit you.

 

[lordkalvan]

The whole comment about "personal attack" was not directed at you in any way.
I have already given my apology to you for any confusion that I may have had and have not argued with your statement that I may have been confused between you and another poster.

That's not a problem, no offence has been taken.

If you really need to have the lessons of the ToS and "personal attack" be explained and the difference between saying that others can rightly be said to be squirming and avoiding answers, then fine. Report me. I don't mind. I'm certain that the leadership of the forum are capable and am willing to trust their decisions and admonishment.

Why would I report you? Debate sometimes gets a bit robust. I regard unacceptable personal attacks to be far more strongly-worded and unpleasant than those being referred to here. Accusations of 'denseness' and 'squirming' are pretty mild and may be justified in the minds of the posters of them by the comments they are responding too; other posters may even agree with them! Deciding whether a comment has been 'rightly' made or not is pretty subjective at the best of times. Enough said.

But in any case it does not directly involve you now does it? Let it go.

As I've said before, comments posted in a public forum are not ring-fenced. Making a comment invites a response from anyone interested who feels they want to say something about it, whether it 'directly involves' them or not. And I believe the 'squirming' accusation was directed at me anyway....

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Evidence about WHAT???

The question should rightly be directed at the person who used the term.

You are the one who seems to have an issue with the term. Why are you so reluctant to tell us what you understand by the word 'old'? I have asked several direct questions of you and raised several points around the subject under discussion, most of which you have avoided answering for some reason or another.

Are you not trying to avoid again?

Avoid what? Your question makes no sense in the context of the posts I have made.

Sure seems like it.

Then I can only assume you haven't been reading what I've posted.

Although you don't like it when I say you're squirming --the truth is an adequate defense.

As you have avoided most of the questions I have directed at you and points I have raised, the question of who is or is not squirming becomes moot at best. Physician, heal thyself.

When I read what you write and see your persistent avoidance of the issues that I raise and your attempts to avoid them become almost laughable? What shall we say then?

What I would say is read what I've actually posted and respond to that, rather than what you imagine I've posted.

The issues surrounding the topic that I've raised include the poor choice of "evidence" (so called) that is presented in topic to help establish the earth to be "old".

What's with the quotation marks? Do you dispute the validity of the evidence posted and linked to? If so, why and what explanation do you offer that better explains that evidence by a different understanding? Why this obsession with the word 'old' when you won't even tell us what you consider the word to mean with regard to the age of Earth. As far as I am concerned, if Earth is at least 25 times older than YE creationists claim it to be, then it is indeed an 'old' Earth; anything beyond this date simply reinforces the message over and over again.

I've stated that the only thing that the article tries to do is speak against Bible believing Creationists.

Have I disagreed? And still I ask, so what? The article has one intent; the evidence on which it draws was not researched with the sole purpose of taunting YE creationists however.

I've pointed to the fact that there is no agreement to be found in the article about the age of the earth...

And I still fail to grasp the point of this aimless argument. I've even asked why you would expect such agreement amongst different dating methodologies using different processes to date different observed phenomena, many of which are not concerned with measuring the absolute age of Earth at all. And have you answered? No? Why not? The article is not about establishing the absolute age of Earth, so you seem to be doing nothing more than engaging in a petulant complaint that, as it doesn't do what you think it should do, then it is entirely worthless.

...and that the quoted portion of the wiki article (which is a questionable source as well)...

Why do you regard an article that references and supports its arguments as 'questionable'? Wiki is 'a questionable source' insofar as persons can post unsupported and unreferenced material to it, but that is not the same thing as showing that a particular article within it is itself 'questionable'.

...only (at best) tries to establish the age of the earth to be less than one (1) million years old.

You asked if I had read the article. I can only presume from this assertion that you have not. One example:

Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be very accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.

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

Makes Earth seem pretty 'old' to me: that's over 30,000 times older than YE creationists assert it to be. Is that 'old' enough for you?

When you try to explain that "Ice Layering" proves that the ice is older than 6,000 (not the earth itself) years you confirm my 2nd point - that the article and that particular portion is merely trying to poke holes in what is commonly held to be the opinion of the believers.

I only tried to explain? I thought I had explained. I have not disagreed with your statement about the intent of the article (except to ask, so what?), but you are mistaken about research into ice layers being concerned with refuting YE creationism; that is not its intent. By the way, what would lead you to suppose that an ice sheet found on earth might be older than Earth itself, as the qualification you have inserted in parentheses seems to suggest?

When you state that there is consensus but refuse to state what the alleged consensus is and avoid my continued questions and requests that you read the article and tell us exactly what your conclusions are - you prove my first thought, that a refusal to be pinned down is another common tactic.

Rude words tremble on my lips. I have told you exactly what that consensus is and explained how it should be understood. It is clear that I have read the article and you have not (see above), so pot, kettle, black. Your continued accusations that I refuse 'to be pinned down' is a deliberate misrepresentation of everything I have posted. I suggest you put up or shut up.

You simply can not have it both ways, or all ways.

I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of.

Either there is consensus and the vast majority of scientists are in agreement and accord about specific dates or there isn't.

You are raising up some weird strawman of your own devising. I've asked you what you understand by 'old'. Now I have to ask you what you understand by 'consensus'? I am reasonably confident that most scientists will agree with the conclusions of the research into the various fields referenced in the article, based on their confidence in the methods and professionalism of the researchers involved. So, for example, most scientists will agree with the research that finds that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for around 25 million years and that the Baptistina Group broke up around 160 million years ago.

When somebody pulls a section of an article to point to an apparent age of the earth to be less than the general consensus and then argues? It's silly. You know this. You do.

What I find ineffably silly is your persistent refusal to understand that a MINIMUM age is not the same thing as an ABSOLUTE age and that defining a minimum age for a particular phenomenon in some way undermines or makes ridiculous the scientific consensus as to what the ABSOLUTE age of Earth is. I know this. I do.

[quote:3bby6gj7]
The selected quote is not about determining the absolute age of Earth, therefore it has nothing to contribute to how old Earth is except to the extent of establishing at least how old it must be.

Finally, Thank you. Now turn your view to the topic title. "Evidence for an old earth".[/quote:3bby6gj7]
You don't have to post my comments in a larger font as if you think I might deny making them otherwise. And what's with the 'finally'? This was the thrust of one of the first posts I made on this thread. Barbarian even pointed this out to you.

Now while you are looking at the title of THIS thread, consider your words:
[quote:3bby6gj7]The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth

I'll ask you why the argument seeks to establish the minimum age of the earth. Wait, maybe you've already answered:

There is no confusion about the information published in the article. The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth is much greater than YE creationism suggests.

So, then we agree. The article seeks only to show that the minimum age of the earth is much greater than YE creationism states. Voila! Eureka! I have found it. (My misquote earlier was from Kelly Bundy fame). Thank you again.[/quote:3bby6gj7]
Why so excited about a So what? moment? What else was the article about? It even says so in its title. BTW, I used to really enjoy Married...with Children, but I hadn't remembered the quotation, so a tip o'the hat for that.

Now I can recall the first comment that you made:

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.

Now I can apologize about my comments about the two of you seemingly double teaming Creationists and take that back, if you wouldn't mind, and now I can definitely tell the two of you apart. Thank you again.

That's okay - and thanks to you.

PS - Please note that so far I've not stated my opinion [about the actual age of the earth] other than "I'm not certain, I wasn't there." That discussion would be better suited to a different thread.

I don't have a problem with this, except that you don't have to be there to be able to decide whether or not the evidence about something is more or less persuasive. I have never been there to observe Pluto, but I'm pretty much persuaded that it exists where it does, doing what astronomers say it does.

 

[VenomFangX]

I think the problem comes when people try and explain our Faith which is clearly to me is in the realm of the supernatural, with the real world. All scientific evidence points to the world being about 14 billion years old. To come up with a hypothesis to critisize scientific research is also fine but one must back it up with real evidence and not mere speculation, and one flaw in a scientific theory does not make it immutable at all but adds to the body of knowledge which God gave us.
Here is a quote from the first post
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.)

This is great thinking, but the writer assumes everything is static and does not bring into effect the glaciations of the Quaternary period (or before) not the effects of the interstadials (warming). !60ka is just above the Holocene period we live in and the Earth then was basically still in an ice age according to the O18/O16 ratios as determined by the formerifera samples.

It seems clear that "orbital forcing" has a major impact on glaciation: this is the result of the amount of energy from the sun being changed due to the changes in earth tilt, distance from the sun and precession. This was more or less correlated with the evidence gathered by Milankovitch.

To say that the Earth is only a mere 160ka is mere folly and denies human endeavour and intelligence. The rock samples alone determine the age of the Earth. The God I love and believe in wants me to find the truth, not mere speculation of people who wish to deny science because they wish to believe in a dream. Some can dream all they wish but that does not make it fact. I will follow the advise of my Lord:
So Jesus said to those who believed in Him, "If you obey
My teaching, you are really My disciples; you will know
the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John 8:31-32

 

[Sparkey]

Why do you quote my posts and then pull them apart?

If I disagree with them, why shouldn't I?

_______________________________________________

There is no consensus in the article regarding the age of the earth, let alone the evidence for an "old" earth. I have asked others to try to reconcile the title of the thread, "Evidence of an old earth" with the content of the thread, namely the Ice Layering study. The problem that I see is the difference between what Science says is "old" namely billions of years old and what the selected article indicates by counting ice layers. There is no agreement between the title of the thread and the quoted article.

If I understand your complaint correctly, why should there be? Why should your children be as old as you?

You've read the article, right?
How old does it declare the earth to be? Your answer is welcome.
The answer, "Older than you, Sparrow," although true, is not very satisfying.

_________________________________________________

You've read the article, right?

Indeed.

How old does it declare the earth to be? Your answer is welcome.

My understanding is that the article is not directed towards decaring how old Earth is, only what the minimum age is as derived from various areas of scientific enquiry.

__________________________________________________

Are you not trying to avoid again?

Avoid what? Your question makes no sense in the context of the posts I have made.

Sure seems like it.

Then I can only assume you haven't been reading what I've posted.

__________________________________________________

Okay then, where have you stated how old the article declared the earth to be? Did I miss that? You now state that you can only assume that I haven't been reading. Really? That's the only thing you can assume? How about the fact that you haven't answered? Maybe that's why I can't find your answer.

Would you not agree that in a thread entitled "Evidence of an old earth," it is reasonable to expect some evidence of an old earth? Where is the evidence? I've seen attempts to prove YE creationist wrong. We've both seen that. What is meant by the word "old" in the thread title??? What is the evidence? Is it ICE LAYERING??? That's ridiculous, isn't it?

Trying to prove Creationists wrong and saying "The earth is more than 6,000 years old," does nothing to establish the actual age of the earth, now does it?

~Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Evidence about WHAT???

Old earth means older than the 6,000 to 10,000 years young earthers say it is. Stop pretending to not understand the point of the article or the arguments it presents. I will not treat you like the illogical grandpa type you try to present yourself as. You have a brain and use it. Your arguments are lies on their face. Either take part in a real discussion or don't, but your currently pretending too be stupid to hold a discussion doesn't suit you.

So, you now state that "Old Earth" means that the earth is 10,001+ years? Okay, thanks for the response. Now, try to prove that your statement is the consensus of the scientific community. Just try. Even as few as two independent sources to substantiate your claim will do as far as I'm concerned.

What is it? Three (3) pages later and you're finally answering my simple question about what you, as the OP, meant by "old" in the thread title? It's like pulling teeth getting straight answers from you guys. Will we need to wait and wade through another three (3) pages before you admit that 10,001+ years is not the consensus of the current scientific opinion for the actual age of the earth? The fact is that 10,001+ years falls short of their (not your) opinion by a factor of at least a million times! should allow you to admit you were wrong. Saying that the earth is at least 10,001 years old DOES NOTHING as far as giving EVIDENCE of an OLD earth (as defined by the general consensus of the scientific community at large). Admit it, so we can get over it. Please.

I'm pretty sure that I can almost randomly pull articles from any scientific journal to show that the age of the earth is far greater than 10,001 years. My point, again, is that the portion of the article YOU selected was probably the poorest example within all the various sections to select if your REAL agenda was to provide EVIDENCE of an OLD earth. Trying to maintain any sense to your first thoughtless post brings you outside of the consensus of current scientific opinion. Doesn't it? You are the only "scientist" (so called) who says that Ice Layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old. That's the general consensus of scientific opinion of the "old" earth, isn't it?

There is a HUGE difference between your selected portion of that article that tried to show that the earth is at least 10,000 years (as you put it) and the general consensus of the scientific community (that being at least 12,000,000,000 years old). Just count the zeros! Hence, my question: What did YOU mean, as the OP, when you titled the thread, 'Evidence of an OLD earth'? Now that you have defined your term as 10,001+ years, I'm daring you to try to disprove my allegation that the only purpose you had in mind was to try to show others to be wrong. You had zero intent of following the intention implied (nay, demanded) but the title. Where is the evidence of an OLD earth to be found in counting Ice Layers? Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the general consensus of scientific opinion isn't 12 billion years. Maybe it's more? It does change rather frequently, doesn't it? But surely you must admit that my point is well taken. Right?

Trolling is also against the T.o.S. by the way. That's the conclusion that I'm reaching now. Perhaps I'm being unfair in this assertion? Maybe you made a thread called "Evidence of an old earth" and cited a portion of a WIKI article to show that the Ice Layering method establishes your real assertion, that the earth is merely 10,001+ years old. Maybe you don't know what the general scientific community asserts as the age of the earth? Perhaps you had no intent, no thought in your mind, about posting such comments to lure Christians into your thread and there was no duplicity involved what-so-ever?

That being the case and with your innocence well established in the trolling arena, It should be easy enough to disprove my second assertion then. I've said and maintain that the only thing that the article tries to do is prove others (Creationists) to be wrong.

lordkalvan agrees:

There is no confusion about the information published in the article. The article does not seek to establish the absolute age of Earth, it seeks only to show that the minimum age of Earth is much greater than YE creationism suggests.

Are you here now disagreeing with my second assertion? Does the article itself and especially does the section you quoted as "evidence" show an "old" earth according to the general consensus of the scientific community??? I'm interested in your sincere answer.

 

[lordkalvan]

There is no consensus in the article regarding the age of the earth, let alone the evidence for an "old" earth. I have asked others to try to reconcile the title of the thread, "Evidence of an old earth" with the content of the thread, namely the Ice Layering study. The problem that I see is the difference between what Science says is "old" namely billions of years old and what the selected article indicates by counting ice layers. There is no agreement between the title of the thread and the quoted article.

I am confused by your small choice of font for your quoted points and why you have selected them at all, as you do not appear to be addressing them.

That aside, why do you answer none of my questions, not even those that seek only to illuminate your own understanding, and keep posting the same complaint that I have addressed already several times? You persist in avoiding defining what you understand by 'old'. You persist in avoiding explaining why you expect different dating methodologies, dating different phenomena by different processes to return a 'consensus', whatever you mean by 'consensus' (where different methodologies can be cross-checked, they do agree - is this consensual enough for you?). Is this a debating technique designed solely to drive your opponents away in frustration?

Again I make the point that if Earth is only 6,000 years old as YE creationism proposes and if ice layers indicate that Earth is at least 25 times older than this age, then how, relatively speaking, is this not 'old' compared to the 'young' of YE creationism? In my opinion this is, relatively speaking, 'old' and the example serves its purpose. Even if you do not believe an age of 145,000 years to be 'old', then what do you regard it as? Once more I ask, do you regard the evidence for ice layers as suspect, if so why, and how does your understanding better explain the observed phenomena?

Okay then, where have you stated how old the article declared the earth to be? Did I miss that? You now state that you can only assume that I haven't been reading. Really? That's the only thing you can assume? How about the fact that you haven't answered? Maybe that's why I can't find your answer.

I have pointed out several times that the article does not seek to establish the ABSOLUTE age of Earth, so your question is pointlessly irrelevant. I have told you how old I understand Earth to be - around 4.54 billion years. So, yes, I assume you haven't been reading my answers.

Would you not agree that in a thread entitled "Evidence of an old earth," it is reasonable to expect some evidence of an old earth?

Yes.

Where is the evidence?

Given in the OP and further referenced in the article linked to.

I've seen attempts to prove YE creationist wrong.

More than attempts, I would suggest, especially as no one has yet taken issue with any of the evidence posted or referenced in the article.

We've both seen that.

Yes, and what do you conclude from the evidence provided?

What is meant by the word "old" in the thread title???

Why three question marks? Does it make the question less answerable? Here's my answer: significantly older than 6,000 years.

What is the evidence? Is it ICE LAYERING??? That's ridiculous, isn't it?

More multiple question marks? The answer is, no, it isn't, unless you believe 145,000 years is the same as 6,000 years. Or even about the same.

Trying to prove Creationists wrong and saying "The earth is more than 6,000 years old," does nothing to establish the actual age of the earth, now does it?

I am tired of your silly semantic games. The thread is directed to showing that Earth is older than 6,000 years. The evidence in the OP and in the linked article does that quite satisfactorily. If you have issues with any of the evidence, I suggest you raise them and we can discuss them. Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Multiple phenomena on or associated with Earth and the Solar System have (not surprisingly) different ages - just as different members of your family, your pets and your possessions have different ages, and yet - shock - they are all part of the same household.