Age of the Earth.

[Man of Faith]

What's bothering you?

I can't put my finger on it right now, but something about that field flip flopping reminds me of something, like a catastrophy.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I need more study on that, something doesn't sound right.

NASA - Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

Magnetic Declination, Models, Data and Services from NGDC

Magnetic Reversal

WHEN NORTH GOES SOUTH: Three-Dimensional Simulation of Geomagnetic Field Reversal

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/timeline.html

 

[Gabethewiking]

See I'm a reasoned person and will drop that argument. When I see evidence that makes sense I have no problem abandoning an argument.

So how come you deny the Fact of Evolution?

I am curious MoF, on a personal level, do you think your belief/opinion is superior to facts? I seen your comments here now and it seems you simple discard the ones you do not like even when the examples provided by people like fantome and Penguin are based on evidence.

It seems your opinion is superior to actual fact (evidence the world provides). Could there be something in this?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I can't put my finger on it right now, but something about that field flip flopping reminds me of something, like a catastrophy.

Maybe you are thinking of the "doomsayers" who equate a pole reversal to the 2012 "end of the world" Aztec calender.
They have little to no understanding of pole reversal and some even posit that the world will shift rotation. This has no scientific validity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought it was like every 10,000 years or so.

The period between reversals isn't uniform. I don't think the period's been as short as 10,000 years lately, but several very long periods without a reversal during the Cretaceous have caused the average period to go way up. Here's a chart of the reversal history if you're curious:

http://roma2.rm.ingv.it/userfiles/i...rePrincipale/InversioniPolarita/reversals.gif

I can't put my finger on it right now, but something about that field flip flopping reminds me of something, like a catastrophy.

Evidence of it happening is embedded in every igneous rock on the planet. It's clear that it happened.

This link goes into a bit more detail about plate tectonics, sea floor spreading and paleomagnetics (including geomagnetic reversal). It's a presentation from a university lecture on the subject: Terra Mobile 2005

One thing to note in the lecture: plate tectonics and sea floor spreading had huge explanatory power. Once the mechanisms for how they happened were identified, suddenly all sorts of other things made sense, like why Hawai'i's volcanoes are active at one end and dormant at the other, why similar fossils, geology and glacier evidence can be found on continents that are separated by oceans (fun fact: geologically speaking, Newfoundland's Avalon peninsula is African, not North American), and why the ocean floor has bands of magnetism that are symmetrical on either side of the mid-ocean ridges.

 

[gnostic]

It is very simple Gabe, it is because of my world view. I look for creation evidence, others look for evolution evidence. I interpret all data in a YEC worldview and it fits.

This is about the age of earth, not about evolution. You shouldn't confuse the 2.

I gave the example of dinosaur, not to prove evolution, but to prove that animals existed on earth before 6000, 10,000 or 13,000 years ago (YEC). All evidences, and test done on the evidences (which is the fossils and the rock surrounding the fossils) have validated that dinosaur existed as early as about 230 million years ago and as late as about 65 million years ago. So the earth have to be far older than all the biblical evidences that support creationism.

If the earth didn't exist in one of those creationist's dates, then all the dinosaur fossils shouldn't exist at all.

How do you account for all the fossil evidences of plants and animals that exist beyond the creationist's estimates?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I thought it was like every 10,000 years or so. Edit: Ah, I read that it was approximately 300,000 years.

 

[darkendless]

I can't put my finger on it right now, but something about that field flip flopping reminds me of something, like a catastrophy.

Bassalt rocks contain tiny tiny dipoles which form in layers indicate pole reversals every 100-300 thousand years. We're currently a long way over-due for such an event.

 

[RedOne77]

If errors of this kind were to creep in we would expect to see huge discrepancies when dating a rock using two or more isotopic pairs: in practice, as fantôme said, independent dating by several radiometric methods generally gives close agreement. There are also statistical methods for dealing with leakage events.
Setting aside that what you know of radiometric dating and dendrochronology might charitably be called limited, think of the poor logic you are deploying here. If you were on a jury and had doubts about the testimony of witnesses A and B, would that justify your ignoring witness C?
Odd, then, that a procedure prone to such arbitrary variability ends up agreeing closely with other dating methods.

I will have to do some research on dating methods before I really comment. Is wiki considered a good (beginners) source for the dating methods mentioned?

If witness C is basing his testimony on the same principles as A and B which I find questionable, than yes I'd be skeptical of C's testimony. Of course the more independent findings that are congruent the greater the possibility of them being accurate.

 

[RedOne77]

Which is like asking a bunch of high school drop-outs clowns and louts to know theoretical astrophysics.

What make you think creationists understand radiometric dating?

I don't think most creationists understand it, but I'm sure there are a few who do.

A less than 6000 years earth is certainly not scientifically valid. Nor is the assertion of the YEC of 13,000 years.

Dinosaur fossils have been found and dated between about 230 million and 65 million years ago, confirmed not just by evolutionists, but archaeologists, geologists, earth scientists and radiometric dating scientists...

For this thread I prefer to leave out the paradigms of both parties, and just focus on what the evidence says.

 

[RedOne77]

Radiometric dating does not assume that there was no daughter element present, nor does it assume that there was no lose or gain of either two elements. In fact these ideas are taken into account for every dating technique. In most cases this gives the dating method a margin of error that is usually between 1-5%. But this is nowhere near sufficient to get the kind of dates that would be required for a young earth. To get dates within the range of a young earth you would have to assume that the margin for error was around one hundred million percent. And I hope you will agree that this is absurd. This is why I spent the first part of my OP talking about the scale of the problem.

Yes, such inaccuracies are absurd; and the continuous precision of radiometric dating tells me that either it's accurate or there is something truly fundamental that we don't understand about it (excluding conspiracy theories and the like).

I am not familiar with this but I will take you word for it, although I would enjoy seeing a link if you (or anyone) has one. But tree ring dendrochronology has been confirmed by carbon dating. Now you would have to argue that not only are both methods are incredibly flawed, but are incredibly flawed by exactly the same amount and in exactly the same way. And again you have to take into account the scale of the problem, to get the kind of dates necessary for a young earth you would have to assume that all trees (not just some) used for dendrochronology have produced not just multiple rings per year but have produced hundreds of rings per year. Again this is absurd.

I assume wiki is a reputable source unless trumped by contemporary scholarly sources. In the dendrochronology page under "Growth Rings" it says, "Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year." But most of the time one ring per year, and where climates are temperate and predictable it is very accurate. The farthest back I could find tree ring dating was around 30,000 years. While I don't like to admit it, I find this dating method reliable and puts the minimum age to around 30,000 years.

Nice, setting up your excuses for failure before the battle is even begun:help:. Actually I think this is very wise of you.

To be honest I'm thinking about becoming an OEC, they're kind of rare so it's hard to get a hold of them, as I do have questions for them regarding reconciling age with scripture.

If we were talking about one, or even a few different dating methods then your criticisms might be valid. But there are over 40 different radiometric dating methods and they all agree. You would have to argue not only that they are all incredibly inaccurate (millions or billions of percent error), but you would also have to explain why they all give the same incredibly inaccurate answer. And then you would have to explain why all the other non-radiometric methods confirm this incredibly inaccurate answer. And then on top of that you would have to some method that supports the dates for a young earth. If you were confident of your ability to do this you would be an idiot.

Again, excluding conspiracy theories, it would have to be shown that we just simply don't understand the mechanisms of radioactive decay. But more research on my part in needed to see if such a thing is feasible.

Let me tell you that I am also not usually the lead science guy in these threads. I believe that I have a good grasp of general science and a good understanding of the philosophy of science. But when it comes to the math and the charts I find I have a lot of work to do. And there are usually others around here that can explain these things better than I. But although I welcome their help I am not going to bow out, I am going to try to stretch myself here. I hope that in trying to explain these concepts I will gain a better understanding of them myself.

My hope for you is that even if you are not convinced by anything in this thread you come away with a better understanding. This could in fact make you a much better proponent for a young earth. That is what we need here, not more creationists, but better creationists.

(so cut the excuses and lets get to work )

Here is a good link.

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective

I'll see what I can do, but OEC is a possibility for me. I'm afraid I haven't been able to look at the links that have been provided to me by you and others yet (been busy in school), but I will get to them in the next few days.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And everyone knows that “a moment” is a unit of time approximately equal to 4 and a half billion years.

Touche.......

 

[Gabethewiking]

I don't think most creationists understand it, but I'm sure there are a few who do.



For this thread I prefer to leave out the paradigms of both parties, and just focus on what the evidence says.

gnostic said what the evidence say... It seems you.. Pretend he did not?

This is what I do not get about you RedOne. Sometimes you show this clear thinking, that you "get it" and show signs of a recovered Creationist that accept the real world.

And then at the stroke of midnight, you start posting things that makes no sense and are in complete conflict with the facts (reality). If you want evidence, you have ALL the dating methods we have, they All confirm eachother where they can and is also CONSISTENT with OTHER knowledge we have from OTHER areas of Science.

What is it you do not understand about this? Denying this, is to deny reality, it is really that simple, same as Evolution, if you deny it, you deny fact (reality). You are really confusing me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When it comes to something that can't be proven either way, such as evolution vs creation, or whether there is a God or not, then that is true.

We're not talking about evolution...though here. The question of the age of the earth was raised.....why does it always seem to end in E vs. C?

 

[Gabethewiking]

We're not talking about evolution...though here. The question of the age of the earth was raised.....why does it always seem to end in E vs. C?

wow, I am impressed by your lack of response to the fact that MoF lied and said there is no way to tell if Evolution is true or not... Impressive, such a lie would make me want to explain to him the facts of it....

perhaps he want to derail the topic as aññ these facts presented to him makes him... Jitteri?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

wow, I am impressed by your lack of response to the fact that MoF lied and said there is no way to tell if Evolution is true or not... Impressive, such a lie would make me want to explain to him the facts of it....

perhaps he want to derail the topic as aññ these facts presented to him makes him... Jitteri?

I'm used to the absurd pseudo-scientific creationist lies and denial......

 

[sonofskeptish]

It is very simple Gabe, it is because of my world view. I look for creation evidence, others look for evolution evidence. I interpret all data in a YEC worldview and it fits.

Denialese to English Translation:
It is very simple Gabe, it is because of my world view. I desperately need creation to be true, regardless of the evidence. While others need evidence to belief things, I don't. I interpret ALL data to fit the YEC worldview... regardless of if it actually fits or not.

 

[Autodidact]

When it comes to something that can't be proven either way, such as evolution vs creation, or whether there is a God or not, then that is true.

Well, science never proves anything, therefore, according to you, science is nothing but bias.

 

[Autodidact]

When it comes to something that can't be proven either way, such as evolution vs creation, or whether there is a God or not, then that is true.

Now let's get on with it. I am here to convince people that the earth is young. That is one of my main community service jobs on this forum. I do it completely without pay, because I care about people.

Moon dust - Scientists were convinced that the astronauts would sink into a sea of moon dust because over millions of years it should have had dust of hundreds of feet thick. But when they landed, they found out that it was a young moon and the dust wasn't that thick.

The facts:
The infall of dust is one hundred times less than these Creationists say it is. This has been known since about 1963. The argument has been kept alive by not quoting from scientific articles written after 1960.
from here.

Too Little Moon Dust

Only a thin layer of dust covers the moon’s surface. However, this does not prove a young age for the moon. Before the Apollo lunar missions, a few scientists had predicted that a yards-thick layer of dust should have settled on the moon over billions of years.



Those predictions got a lot of press, yet further satellite measurements of dust in space indicated a much smaller rate of accumulation than previously assumed. This does not mean the moon is billions of years old; modern scientists cannot know the rate of dust accumulation in the past or the amount of dust originally on the moon. Therefore moon dust cannot be used as an age indicator one way or the other.

from: Arguments Creationists Should Not Use, Answers in Genesis (the leading creationist website.)

 

[Autodidact]

See I'm a reasoned person and will drop that argument. When I see evidence that makes sense I have no problem abandoning an argument.

MoF: The evidence indicates that this argument supports the other side. If you were a reasoned person, you would change your mind.