[_ Old Earth _] The Age of the Earth – The Helium Clock

[Adam]

Th
Classifying by the layers or Strata is called Chronostratigraphy, while classification in order to show the "periods of Time" is called Geochronography.
We are interested in the Geo chronology that relates to the six "days" mentioned in Genesis.

6 days?


How can you conflate 4 eons with 6 days?

 

[Adam]

The Biological Classification separate the rocks into Eons base upon the four biological components:

1) Phanerozoic Eon:
Rocks with abundant evidence of life, i.e. fossils.

2) Proterozoic Eon:
Rocks with only evidence of Protozoan life forms, no fossils.

3) Archean Eon:
Rocks with evidence of only bacteria.

4) Hadean eon:
Rocks devoid of evidence for any life.

These are the correct divisions.

 

[cupid dave]

These are the correct divisions.

1) Of course they are correct.
Biological Classification organizes these four layers in accord with a particular principle used to separate one from the other.
That priciple is based upon what evidence of life is found inside the rock.

Biological Classification will organize the Rock layers in accordance with what evidence for life exists or does not exist in the rocks of each of the four classifications.



2) But in comparing the scientific record, in regard todescribing the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth, I am appropriately referring to the Geochronological Classification as used by the International Commission on Stratigraphy.


The GEOCHRONOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION:
The geologic time scale provides a system of chronologic measurement relating stratigraphy to time that is used by geologists, paleontologists and other earth scientists,...

... an here by Theistic Evolution bible readers.

 

[Adam]

The geochronigraphic timescale used by The ICS is 4 eons broken up into ten eras, just as lordkalvan has pointed out.

http://geology.com/time.htm

http://geology.com/usgs/geologic-time-scale/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/pdf/FS10-3059.pdf

http://www.agiweb.org/nacsn/67209_articles_article_file_1639.pdf

http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/jean-baptiste-lamarck/2010/felix-gradstein/

http://www.stratigraphy.org/bak/stage.pdf

There is only one kind of time. I have no patience with the claim that organic evolution measures one kind of time and radioactive disintegration another. We may speak of relative age and absolute age, but they are relative or absolute with respect to one and the same kind of time

H.D. Hedberg

A reverberation of time in geology are the material documents of its history: replacing a formation of rocks, remains of organic life, tectonic structures etc.... The primacy in stratigraphy by virtue of specificity of constructing geological time belongs to material bearers of this time — stratigraphic subdivisions and information, contained in them... Any properties of a time can not be revealed besides physical documents of geology, besides development of a material substance

B.S. Sokolov


Geochronometric units cannot be free of material referents and defining events. No some units can. Samples of some radioactive minerals and their decay products are, for example, material entities which may permit inference of two events a separated in time and consequently suited to designating an interval of time. The fact that the interval between them can be expressed in years should not obscure the fact that, like any interval of time, it is defined by events

D. Kitts

 

[cupid dave]

The geochronigraphic timescale used by The ICS is 4 eons broken up into ten eras, just as lordkalvan has pointed out.

http://geology.com/time.htm

http://geology.com/usgs/geologic-time-scale/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/pdf/FS10-3059.pdf

http://www.agiweb.org/nacsn/67209_articles_article_file_1639.pdf

http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/jean-baptiste-lamarck/2010/felix-gradstein/

http://www.stratigraphy.org/bak/stage.pdf

There is only one kind of time. I have no patience with the claim that organic evolution measures one kind of time and radioactive disintegration another. We may speak of relative age and absolute age, but they are relative or absolute with respect to one and the same kind of time

H.D. Hedberg

A reverberation of time in geology are the material documents of its history: replacing a formation of rocks, remains of organic life, tectonic structures etc.... The primacy in stratigraphy by virtue of specificity of constructing geological time belongs to material bearers of this time — stratigraphic subdivisions and information, contained in them... Any properties of a time can not be revealed besides physical documents of geology, besides development of a material substance

B.S. Sokolov


Geochronometric units cannot be free of material referents and defining events. No some units can. Samples of some radioactive minerals and their decay products are, for example, material entities which may permit inference of two events a separated in time and consequently suited to designating an interval of time. The fact that the interval between them can be expressed in years should not obscure the fact that, like any interval of time, it is defined by events

D. Kitts

?
What has your patience got to do this?

Geological Time is a scientific concept.

It is applicable to Cosmic Evolution because it is the only "ruler" for time we have in that discipline.

Genesis Creation and Scientific Cosmic Evolution Theory both utilize Geochronologic time based upon the six major rock layers because they both recognize six "durations" have past to date.

 

[Adam]

?
What has your patience got to do this?

Geological Time is a scientific concept.

It is applicable to Cosmic Evolution because it is the only "ruler" for time we have in that discipline.

Genesis Creation and Scientific Cosmic Evolution Theory both utilize Geochronologic time based upon the six major rock layers because they both recognize six "durations" have past to date.

Did you even bother looking at the links?

What I posted is in support of geological time and gives the details of how the concept is broken down. Why are you strawmanning me? I never said that it wasn't a scientific concept.

I merely pointed to a large body of work that shows, definitely, that the ICS does not break down the timescale into 6 units.

There aren't 6 major rock layers. Your claims are false.

 

[cupid dave]

Did you even bother looking at the links?

What I posted is in support of geological time and gives the details of how the concept is broken down. Why are you strawmanning me? I never said that it wasn't a scientific concept.

I merely pointed to a large body of work that shows, definitely, that the ICS does not break down the timescale into 6 units.

There aren't 6 major rock layers. Your claims are false.

Of course the ICS breaks Geological Rok layers down the way I told you.


One list and chart is called Chronostratigraphical Classification:
They list every subdivision from the bottom up, indicating the age of each of the rock layers by using a suffix like eon, (billions years old), era, (million years old), periods, epochs, etc.

The other listing which corresponds to the "six days" is called the Geochronological Classification:

As the ICS link below explains, "The geologic time scale provides a system of chronologic measurement (i.e.; time) relating stratigraphy (i.e.; the layers of rocks) to time that is used by geologists, paleontologists and other earth scientists,...

Here is their link and their Chart constructed as a wheel:

(Notice that the ICS refers to this as the CLOCK)

(Also note that your resistance to this correspondence emphasizes the enormous impact of this Theistic Evolution observation.

Equating what is read in Genesis as six "days" to what science has only recent discovered to be factually correct is really a theological H-bomb tht certifies Genesis as factual.

Most people whether they are educated enough in the facts, which your are gradually becomingas you google and google, find this correspondence alarming whether they are atheists or confirmed Funsamentalist 6 day creation people.

Few attempt so futily to deny the truth here as do you, most merely avoid further examination because this one verification of Genesis 1 is supportive of the divinity of scrioture.)

 

[Tri Unity]

Stratigraphy does not date the earth - it simpy tells us what was buried first and what came after. This process is not fool-proof. Many stratigraphical anomalies show evidence of catastrophe, where layers of sediment are interspersed and mixed with pre-existing strata. To put your faith in this process as a means of estimating evolution requires faith on par with Scientology.

 

[lordkalvan]

Stratigraphy does not date the earth - it simpy tells us what was buried first and what came after. This process is not fool-proof. Many stratigraphical anomalies show evidence of catastrophe, where layers of sediment are interspersed and mixed with pre-existing strata. To put your faith in this process as a means of estimating evolution requires faith on par with Scientology.

What are these 'layers of sediment...interspersed and mixed with pre-existing strata' that you refer to (can you give us some examples, please?) and how are they 'evidence of catastrophes'?

 

[Tri Unity]

What are these 'layers of sediment... interspersed and mixed with pre-existing strata' that you refer to (can you give us some examples, please?) and how are they 'evidence of catastrophes'?

Examples of 'layers of sediment...interspersed and mixed with pre-existing strata' which challenge the classical ideas of the law of superposition are Polystrate Fossils.

“A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Unconformity and metamorphosis also account for irregularities in sediment deposits mixed with pre-existing strata, which is mostly attributed to catastrophism, although the entire “fossil forests” are a great contradiction to the law of superposition and the theory of uniformitarianism. These fossilised forests demonstrate clear examples of how these assumed “laws” do not prove evolution, they in fact support creation and catastrophism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_forests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconformity

http://www.icr.org/article/origin-coal/

http://www.icr.org/article/445/

http://www.icr.org/article/6631/

Science always has a comeback, and I am sure this information will do little if nothing to nudge you away from your faith in evolution. Faith has that effect on people. Evolution is a faith. Once you have believed in something – anything – it is near impossible to turn anyone aside from what they have invested their heart and soul into. Evolution was planned by God to tempt people away from Him or to become lukewarm in social or political alliances. This is the same reason why God allowed the Philistines and Canaanites to remain in the holy land; they were to challenge and test the spiritual soldiers who claimed to defend their God. When any Israelite went over to the “other side”, this demonstrated where their heart was all along. This process has always existed. That is why evolution will never pose any real threat to God or His people.

 

[Adam]

Of course the ICS breaks Geological Rok layers down the way I told you.


One list and chart is called Chronostratigraphical Classification:
They list every subdivision from the bottom up, indicating the age of each of the rock layers by using a suffix like eon, (billions years old), era, (million years old), periods, epochs, etc.

The other listing which corresponds to the "six days" is called the Geochronological Classification:

As the ICS link below explains, "The geologic time scale provides a system of chronologicmeasurement (i.e.; time) relating stratigraphy (i.e.; the layers of rocks) to time that is used by geologists, paleontologists and other earth scientists,...

Here is their link and their Chart constructed as a wheel:

(Notice that the ICS refers to this as the CLOCK)

(Also note that your resistance to this correspondence emphasizes the enormous impact of this Theistic Evolution observation.

Equating what is read in Genesis as six "days" to what science has only recent discovered to be factually correct is really a theological H-bomb tht certifies Genesis as factual.

Most people whether they are educated enough in the facts, which your are gradually becomingas you google and google, find this correspondence alarming whether they are atheists or confirmed Funsamentalist 6 day creation people.

Few attempt so futily to deny the truth here as do you, most merely avoid further examination because this one verification of Genesis 1 is supportive of the divinity of scrioture.)

I have more that met the burden of proof showing that there are 4 major divisions, not six. You have posted an incomplete chart and ad hommed me, attacking what you think are my motivations since you cannot undermine the data.


This is no longer up for discussion.

 

[lordkalvan]

Examples of 'layers of sediment...interspersed and mixed with pre-existing strata' which challenge the classical ideas of the law of superposition are Polystrate Fossils.

“A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.â€

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

And, as Wiki also pointed out, ‘polystrate’ is not a term used in standard geology and tends only to crop up when used by creationist sources. This is because such fossils are neither unusual nor unexplained by standard geology, any more than ‘non-polystrate’ fossils are. For example, also from your cited article:

‘Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation.[2][4] Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano.’

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Unconformity and metamorphosis also account for irregularities in sediment deposits mixed with pre-existing strata, which is mostly attributed to catastrophism…

When you say ‘attributed to catastrophism’, what do you mean by ‘catastrophism’ exactly and do you have any examples in mind? For example, unconformities are often erosional surfaces and erosion is not uniquely or even generally a catastrophic process. Also, unconformities representing a non-depositional period do not on the face of it appear to be evidence of catastrophic processes at work.

…although the entire “fossil forests†are a great contradiction to the law of superposition and the theory of uniformitarianism. These fossilised forests demonstrate clear examples of how these assumed “laws†do not prove evolution, they in fact support creation and catastrophism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_forests

You make the mistake of supposing that catastrophic events must necessarily support creationism and invalidate standard models of geologic processes. This is a correlation you have failed to establish. The evidence from Yellowstone Petrified Forests, for example, indicates burial by sequential volcanic events, scarcely evidence for burial by a single catastrophic global flood.

Science always has a comeback, and I am sure this information will do little if nothing to nudge you away from your faith in evolution.

By ‘comeback’ do you mean reasoned counterargument based on evidence? And I would point out that none of this discussion directly impacts evolution, so whether it is a matter of ‘faith’ or not is moot.

Faith has that effect on people. Evolution is a faith. Once you have believed in something – anything – it is near impossible to turn anyone aside from what they have invested their heart and soul into.

Actually, I have no ‘investment’ in evolution at all. If you can demonstrate unequivocally that it is false, in the process offering an account of the evidence that supports it that better explains it from a creationist point of view as consiliently and consistently as does evolutionary theory, I will be happy to discuss your arguments.

Evolution was planned by God to tempt people away from Him or to become lukewarm in social or political alliances. This is the same reason why God allowed the Philistines and Canaanites to remain in the holy land; they were to challenge and test the spiritual soldiers who claimed to defend their God. When any Israelite went over to the “other sideâ€, this demonstrated where their heart was all along. This process has always existed. That is why evolution will never pose any real threat to God or His people.

I would be interested in your evidence to support the idea that ‘Evolution was planned by God to tempt people away from Him’. If God exists, why is it not equally likely that he planned evolution as part of his divine plan for life on Earth? It seems more reasonable, after all, to look for evidence of God’s work in his actual creation rather than in Late Bronze Age tales based on the limited knowledge and understanding of the culture responsible for them.

 

[Grazer]

A mechanism will never threaten a creator as an explanation.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Pizzaguy]

Evolution was planned by God to tempt people away from Him or to become lukewarm in social or political alliances. This is the same reason why God allowed the Philistines and Canaanites to remain in the holy land; they were to challenge and test the spiritual soldiers who claimed to defend their God. When any Israelite went over to the “other sideâ€, this demonstrated where their heart was all along.

Evolution was planned by God to tempt people away from Him? See, this is why people who know little or nothing about science should not get into such discussions. You are not helping your cause here. Not at all.

 

[cupid dave]

Evolution was planned by God to tempt people away from Him?

See, this is why people who know little or nothing about science should not get into such discussions. You are not helping your cause here. Not at all.

Definitely,...
But what will happen first is that Science will be seen to support what Genesis actually is saying to us now, couched in a degree of vagueness and euphemism in order to by-pass the ancient and medieval readers who would have discarded a more clear and specific report of the events we can now see parallel what Cosmic Evolution says.

The atheists, the bible Bashers, and the sexually promiscuous segments in our modern society will be silenced in their attacks and ridicule on Scripture as they laugh at the interpretations they hear from the established churches of today, but will not hold against Theistic Evolution interpretation.

 

[Tri Unity]

I would be interested in your evidence to support the idea that ‘Evolution was planned by God to tempt people away from Him’.

This is not the most conducive place to discuss evidence for creation or the motives of God. Suffice to say that apparent contradictions in science or nature deepen the desire or ideology we are drawn to. Drug addicts use the existence of drugs and the cannabis receptors in our brains to claim that it was nature's intention for us to use drugs. Homosexuals or peadaphiles use their unnatural desires they were born with or developed to justify that nature intended this of them. Glutons do the same with food. All humans use every opportunity to sin according to their desire. Once they are enticed by desire they are drawn into sin, and then it is a snare to them - whether the sin is physical or abstract - carnal or intellectual. This is the mechanism God put into place so that we might learn what it is that we value the most, and what we worship above God. Evolution is one of those intellectual snares that tempt us to sin against God.


James 1:14"Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brothers."

 

[lordkalvan]

This is not the most conducive place to discuss evidence for creation or the motives of God. Suffice to say that apparent contradictions in science or nature deepen the desire or ideology we are drawn to. Drug addicts use the existence of drugs and the cannabis receptors in our brains to claim that it was nature's intention for us to use drugs. Homosexuals or peadaphiles use their unnatural desires they were born with or developed to justify that nature intended this of them. Glutons do the same with food. All humans use every opportunity to sin according to their desire. Once they are enticed by desire they are drawn into sin, and then it is a snare to them - whether the sin is physical or abstract - carnal or intellectual. This is the mechanism God put into place so that we might learn what it is that we value the most, and what we worship above God. Evolution is one of those intellectual snares that tempt us to sin against God.


James 1:14"Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brothers."

So that's no evidence then, just a series of unsupported assertions. I assume you have no interest in further discussion as you ignored the entirety of the remainder of the post you are supposedly replying to.

 

[Tri Unity]

I assume you have no interest in further discussion as you ignored the entirety of the remainder of the post you are supposedly replying to.

I don't think you are being honest. You have made comments just for the sake of making comments. You say you are not invested in evolution; but your actions tell a different story. You are deeply invested in it and you have placed a high value in your beliefs. This "value system" is another evidence of creation. Evolved humans who originated by chance collisions of random atomic particles cannot develop a value system. Even if they had it is completely irrational and delusional for two atoms to ask "why did we collide?" The fact that you expect intelligent answers and evidence is a creation perspective. The facts are right in front of your face but they make no impact on you. That is because these things need a spiritual realization to make any sense of them. You cannot make sense without a spiritual realization; yet you are expecting them to make sense before you develop your spiritual sense. This is where my evolution "brothers" make a similar mistake. They have simply given lip service to a creed; but they prove false to its power. Their confession demonstrates that they are not spiritually conscious. If you want to see, you first need to open your eyes.

 

[Free]

I don't think you are being honest. You have made comments just for the sake of making comments. You say you are not invested in evolution; but your actions tell a different story. You are deeply invested in it and you have placed a high value in your beliefs. This "value system" is another evidence of creation. Evolved humans who originated by chance collisions of random atomic particles cannot develop a value system. Even if they had it is completely irrational and delusional for two atoms to ask "why did we collide?" The fact that you expect intelligent answers and evidence is a creation perspective. The facts are right in front of your face but they make no impact on you. That is because these things need a spiritual realization to make any sense of them. You cannot make sense without a spiritual realization; yet you are expecting them to make sense before you develop your spiritual sense. This is where my evolution "brothers" make a similar mistake. They have simply given lip service to a creed; but they prove false to its power. Their confession demonstrates that they are not spiritually conscious. If you want to see, you first need to open your eyes.

False dichotomy aside, why are you using unsupported assumptions in a science forum?

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't think you are being honest.

And your evidence for this accusation is what, exactly?

You have made comments just for the sake of making comments.

Your comment makes no sense. You may not have noticed, but this is a discussion forum; I make comments on posts that interest me. Thats why I'm here.

You say you are not invested in evolution; but your actions tell a different story. You are deeply invested in it and you have placed a high value in your beliefs.

If I am 'deeply invested' as you assert, it is because the evidence oersuades me so. Here is yiyr opportunity to convince me otherwise by following the course of action I suggested. Of coyrse, if you'd rather engage in unsupported assertions about my motives and understanding, please expect me to comment on these empty claims.

This "value system" is another evidence of creation. Evolved humans who originated by chance collisions of random atomic particles cannot develop a value system.

Well, as your strawman version of evolution bears no relation to reality, I think we can reasonably ignore it.

Even if they had it is completely irrational and delusional for two atoms to ask "why did we collide?"

To the best of my knowledge atoms do not interact intellectually.

The fact that you expect intelligent answers and evidence is a creation perspective. The facts are right in front of your face but they make no impact on you. That is because these things need a spiritual realization to make any sense of them. You cannot make sense without a spiritual realization; yet you are expecting them to make sense before you develop your spiritual sense. This is where my evolution "brothers" make a similar mistake. They have simply given lip service to a creed; but they prove false to its power. Their confession demonstrates that they are not spiritually conscious. If you want to see, you first need to open your eyes.

So that's still no evidence, just a self-serving rationalisation for why you are unable to present any. This isn't going to convince anyone, I'm afraid.