I don't think anyone is going to ever get answers to their questions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
A good reason not to be a Christian.
McBell
Unbound
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@Dan From Smithville I apologize. I just read the post where you gave the answer about the gene.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There is, however, an overwhelming consensus and almost all of those who disagree have an religious vested interest that becomes glaringly obvious if one actually looks at what they say. Many have signed 'statements of faith' that openly admit that they will stick to their faith positions despite any evidence. At that point, they are no longer doing science, just blind faith.
that wasn’t what I said or intimated. If it had that hew, please forgive.
Do notice that though he was wise, as compared to others, Ecclesiastes, as well as his life, shows that even he lacked wisdom as compared to God.
Yes, there is consensus but consensus doesn’t always translate as correct. Yesterday’s consensus has been corrected with new science.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
False.
Only a fool or a charlatan would try to use carbon dating for millions of years.
Once again we see that you have no idea what 'proves' means.
[citation missing]
Here is some real data (source):
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Sorry, but when we have evidence from multiple unrelated scientific disciplines, all of which are totally convincing in themselves to pretty much everybody who isn't clinging to their blind faith positions, it really is way, way beyond the legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There is evidence from all disciplines but they all refute billion of years and evolution.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Depends on what you are talking about and what “science” you are referring to and what new science we discover.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Not really, no. It would apply to any concession of the type I described. In this case, it is way beyond reasonable doubt that
- the Earth and universe are billions of years old,
- evolution is correct and explains the diversity and complexity of life,
- there was never only two humans,
- and there was no worldwide flood.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
A recent discovery should change the way science looks at the universe, but the bureaucracy of science may not change with the times. It still, clings to outdated theory.
Scientists have discovered an ocean of water floating in space that 140 trillion times larger than the oceans of the earth, red shift dated to be 12 billion years old. It was/is being generated by a quasar. This quasar is composed of a super massive black hole which is puling in matter as high speeds and is giving off tremendous amounts of energy and water; Separating the waters from the waters.
MSN.
This is actually consistent with a universe formation theory I conceptuality developed decades ago. In that theory, the BB does not just expand into umpteen subatomic particles like assumed to day. This would create too much entropy increase and chill the universe, quickly. It would require a lot of start up energy to get to where we are.
A better approach was to have the primordial atom of the Big Bang, divide like a cell into two daughter cells. The change of entropy is much less and the needed energy for start up is less. Since all the matter of the universe is still contained in small space, we get something like a mother black hole dividing into two daughter cells. This continues to divide until we reach a critical state; galaxy level. This is when all the daughter black holes expand. more similar to the BB; mini BB phase with the release of matter and energy. This causes the universe to expand relative to the galaxies. While the powerful energy wave fronts coming from all direction to each galaxy in the cluster, add pressure and helps to contain the expanding matter, while adding turbulence and eddies.
The above quasar appears to show us what comes next. Black holes reform in the center of mass of galaxies and they start to recycle the original matter, forming water. Water is the easiest way to make stars. The kicker is ice contracts when it reaches the melting point. A ball of ice when heated to 0C will collapse by 10 percent, allowing a gravity based fusion hammer cascade effect to just start the first stars.
Scientists have discovered an ocean of water floating in space that 140 trillion times larger than the oceans of the earth, red shift dated to be 12 billion years old. It was/is being generated by a quasar. This quasar is composed of a super massive black hole which is puling in matter as high speeds and is giving off tremendous amounts of energy and water; Separating the waters from the waters.
MSN.
This is actually consistent with a universe formation theory I conceptuality developed decades ago. In that theory, the BB does not just expand into umpteen subatomic particles like assumed to day. This would create too much entropy increase and chill the universe, quickly. It would require a lot of start up energy to get to where we are.
A better approach was to have the primordial atom of the Big Bang, divide like a cell into two daughter cells. The change of entropy is much less and the needed energy for start up is less. Since all the matter of the universe is still contained in small space, we get something like a mother black hole dividing into two daughter cells. This continues to divide until we reach a critical state; galaxy level. This is when all the daughter black holes expand. more similar to the BB; mini BB phase with the release of matter and energy. This causes the universe to expand relative to the galaxies. While the powerful energy wave fronts coming from all direction to each galaxy in the cluster, add pressure and helps to contain the expanding matter, while adding turbulence and eddies.
The above quasar appears to show us what comes next. Black holes reform in the center of mass of galaxies and they start to recycle the original matter, forming water. Water is the easiest way to make stars. The kicker is ice contracts when it reaches the melting point. A ball of ice when heated to 0C will collapse by 10 percent, allowing a gravity based fusion hammer cascade effect to just start the first stars.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There are no trees that are or have had a lifespan greater than 4500 years.False.
Only a fool or a charlatan would try to use carbon dating for millions of years.
Once again we see that you have no idea what 'proves' means.
[citation missing]
Here is some real data (source):
That is a big problem for long ages.
Ans varies, stalagmites can accumulate very quickly especially in the after math of the flood.
Just the old false assumption of uniformitarianism which has been shown to be false science.
Very possible, there is no time within the realm of light
There are a lot of questions here. Science starts with many assumptions but not many answers. Bible doesn’t say how He did it, just that He did it.
I disagree and science cannot confirm that.
That is an interpretation. Those who believe there was no worldwide flood agree that there were major floods all over the world. They interpret it as local floods but no one was there to confirm it was local.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Interesting point about light and time. I was checking on the word day and found that the length of a day on other planets is different from ours. The longest day in this planetary system seems to be on Venus. There one earth day is the equivalent of 243 days. An Earth Day Is 24 Hours, but How Long Are Days on Other Planets?
The best estimate of the earth's age comes from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. Using the rate of radioactive decay of uranium, scientists calculated that the earth is 4.56 billion years old.
Fundamentals of radiogenic isotope geology
Radioactive nuclides decay with a half-life. If the half-life of a material is 100 years and you have 1 kg of it, 100 years from now you will only have 0.5 kg of it. The rest will have decayed into a different nuclide (called a daughter nuclide). Several radioactive nuclides exist in nature with half-lives long enough to be useful for geologic dating.
Let’s go through an example of calculating the age of a rock with the radioactive nuclide Rubidium-87 (Rb87). This nuclide decays to Strontium-87 (Sr87) with a half-life of 48.8 billion years. Imagine going way back in time and looking at some lava that is cooling to become a rock. It naturally has different concentrations of Rb and Sr in different parts of the rock because these don’t necessarily mix perfectly. This is shown schematically in Figure 1. Once it cools all the way and crystallizes, it is considered “born” and atoms can no longer come in or out of the system. At this point, its radiometric clock starts ticking.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a rock with different concentrations of Rb and Sb throughout.
Though the Rb and Sr concentrations differ, it’s safe to assume that the isotopic makeup of Sr and of Rb is the same everywhere. This is the key to figuring out how much time has passed since the rock solidified. As time goes on, the Rb87 in the rock slowly turns into Sr87. Parts of the rock that have more Rb87 will end up with more Sr87. By measuring a few samples of the rock and comparing the relative amounts of Sr87 and Rb87, we can figure out how old the rock is!
The mathematics of radioactive decay shows us that the number of Sr87 nuclides that exist after some time t is:Sr87now=(eλt−1)Rb87now+Sr87origSr87now=(eλt−1)Rb87now+Sr87orig
We can measure Sr87nowSr87now, Rb87nowRb87now, and λλ, but we can’t measure Sr87origSr87orig (no one was around to measure it back then). So what do we do? We use something called an isochron. If you think about it, the equation above is a lot like the formula for a line, y=mx+by=mx+b with y=Sr87nowy=Sr87now, m=(eλt−1)m=(eλt−1), x=Rb87nowx=Rb87now, and b=Sr87origb=Sr87orig. Because the rock originally had different mixtures of Rb and Sr, we can expect to get different points for each sample we measure, and if all samples have the same age, then we expect to see a straight line (hence the name isochron).
We plot all our measurements and then fit a line through them. The slope of the line can then be solved for tt, giving us the age of the rock. As a bonus, the intercept (bb) of the line tells us the value of Sr87origSr87orig because we know the line was flat when the age of the rock was zero. The animation in Figure 2 shows the flat line and how it increases with time.
Figure 2. The isochrons of the Rb/Sr clock. Note that the values of the axes are actually normalized by Sr86 because the mass spectrometers used to take these measurements are much more accurate at relative values than they are at absolutes. It works because Sr86 is stable and not radiogenic and therefore stays constant with time.
The isochron method can determine the age of any rock, but new rocks are formed all the time. So to figure out the age of the Earth, we have to look somewhere else… in the sky!
The age of the Earth
Earth has a molten magma layer and plate tectonics, so the “closed system” requirement of these radiometric dating methods is sometimes difficult to satisfy for Earth itself. Meteorites, on the other hand, have been floating around in space since the solar system was formed. When they come crashing to Earth, analysis of their composition can be geologically analyzed.
Claire Patterson was the first to accurately date the crystallization of Earth to 4.55 +/- 0.05 billion years ago. He used a lead isotope isochron method using measurements from three different meteorites (lead-206, lead-207 are the eventual decay products of uranium-238 and uranium-235). He then took measurements from the deep ocean that fell squarely on the meteorite isochron, suggesting that the Earth and the meteorites were both created at the same time, 4.55 billion years ago.
Many other methods have been used to date the Earth, with many different sets of radioactive nuclides (and other methods). They are all consistent with Patterson’s measurement. This is how we know how old the Earth is.
The mathematical details of the lead-lead isotopic clock are less straightforward than those of the Rb-Sr method. On the other hand, since only lead is involved (instead of two chemical species), the lead-lead clock is resilient against situations where the samples were recently weathered or otherwise “opened”. We will skip the isochron derivation, but you can find it elsewhere[1]. The end result is that the slope of the isochron with Pb207 concentrations graphed against Pb206 (both relative to non-radiogenic Pb204) is equal to:
m=NU235NU238eλU235t−1eλU238t−1m=NU235NU238eλU235t−1eλU238t−1
Data from several meteorites and from a few terrestrial sources are shown in Figure 3. The data have been replotted from the tables of [2].
Figure 3.The Pb-Pb isochron of several meteorites and deep Earth samples. Since this determines the age of the Earth, it is also known as the Geochron.
The best-fit line shown in Figure 3 has a slope of 0.602459. Unfortunately, the geochron equation above is transcendental, meaning there’s no algebraic solution for it and it has to be solved numerically.
Note that Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207 and that Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206. There are short-lived details in these decay chains, but they don’t matter on the timescales we’re dealing with.
Posted at What are a few simple, compelling examples of proof that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years?
Fundamentals of radiogenic isotope geology
Radioactive nuclides decay with a half-life. If the half-life of a material is 100 years and you have 1 kg of it, 100 years from now you will only have 0.5 kg of it. The rest will have decayed into a different nuclide (called a daughter nuclide). Several radioactive nuclides exist in nature with half-lives long enough to be useful for geologic dating.
Let’s go through an example of calculating the age of a rock with the radioactive nuclide Rubidium-87 (Rb87). This nuclide decays to Strontium-87 (Sr87) with a half-life of 48.8 billion years. Imagine going way back in time and looking at some lava that is cooling to become a rock. It naturally has different concentrations of Rb and Sr in different parts of the rock because these don’t necessarily mix perfectly. This is shown schematically in Figure 1. Once it cools all the way and crystallizes, it is considered “born” and atoms can no longer come in or out of the system. At this point, its radiometric clock starts ticking.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a rock with different concentrations of Rb and Sb throughout.
Though the Rb and Sr concentrations differ, it’s safe to assume that the isotopic makeup of Sr and of Rb is the same everywhere. This is the key to figuring out how much time has passed since the rock solidified. As time goes on, the Rb87 in the rock slowly turns into Sr87. Parts of the rock that have more Rb87 will end up with more Sr87. By measuring a few samples of the rock and comparing the relative amounts of Sr87 and Rb87, we can figure out how old the rock is!
The mathematics of radioactive decay shows us that the number of Sr87 nuclides that exist after some time t is:Sr87now=(eλt−1)Rb87now+Sr87origSr87now=(eλt−1)Rb87now+Sr87orig
We can measure Sr87nowSr87now, Rb87nowRb87now, and λλ, but we can’t measure Sr87origSr87orig (no one was around to measure it back then). So what do we do? We use something called an isochron. If you think about it, the equation above is a lot like the formula for a line, y=mx+by=mx+b with y=Sr87nowy=Sr87now, m=(eλt−1)m=(eλt−1), x=Rb87nowx=Rb87now, and b=Sr87origb=Sr87orig. Because the rock originally had different mixtures of Rb and Sr, we can expect to get different points for each sample we measure, and if all samples have the same age, then we expect to see a straight line (hence the name isochron).
We plot all our measurements and then fit a line through them. The slope of the line can then be solved for tt, giving us the age of the rock. As a bonus, the intercept (bb) of the line tells us the value of Sr87origSr87orig because we know the line was flat when the age of the rock was zero. The animation in Figure 2 shows the flat line and how it increases with time.
Figure 2. The isochrons of the Rb/Sr clock. Note that the values of the axes are actually normalized by Sr86 because the mass spectrometers used to take these measurements are much more accurate at relative values than they are at absolutes. It works because Sr86 is stable and not radiogenic and therefore stays constant with time.
The isochron method can determine the age of any rock, but new rocks are formed all the time. So to figure out the age of the Earth, we have to look somewhere else… in the sky!
The age of the Earth
Earth has a molten magma layer and plate tectonics, so the “closed system” requirement of these radiometric dating methods is sometimes difficult to satisfy for Earth itself. Meteorites, on the other hand, have been floating around in space since the solar system was formed. When they come crashing to Earth, analysis of their composition can be geologically analyzed.
Claire Patterson was the first to accurately date the crystallization of Earth to 4.55 +/- 0.05 billion years ago. He used a lead isotope isochron method using measurements from three different meteorites (lead-206, lead-207 are the eventual decay products of uranium-238 and uranium-235). He then took measurements from the deep ocean that fell squarely on the meteorite isochron, suggesting that the Earth and the meteorites were both created at the same time, 4.55 billion years ago.
Many other methods have been used to date the Earth, with many different sets of radioactive nuclides (and other methods). They are all consistent with Patterson’s measurement. This is how we know how old the Earth is.
The mathematical details of the lead-lead isotopic clock are less straightforward than those of the Rb-Sr method. On the other hand, since only lead is involved (instead of two chemical species), the lead-lead clock is resilient against situations where the samples were recently weathered or otherwise “opened”. We will skip the isochron derivation, but you can find it elsewhere[1]. The end result is that the slope of the isochron with Pb207 concentrations graphed against Pb206 (both relative to non-radiogenic Pb204) is equal to:
m=NU235NU238eλU235t−1eλU238t−1m=NU235NU238eλU235t−1eλU238t−1
Data from several meteorites and from a few terrestrial sources are shown in Figure 3. The data have been replotted from the tables of [2].
Figure 3.The Pb-Pb isochron of several meteorites and deep Earth samples. Since this determines the age of the Earth, it is also known as the Geochron.
The best-fit line shown in Figure 3 has a slope of 0.602459. Unfortunately, the geochron equation above is transcendental, meaning there’s no algebraic solution for it and it has to be solved numerically.
Note that Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207 and that Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206. There are short-lived details in these decay chains, but they don’t matter on the timescales we’re dealing with.
Posted at What are a few simple, compelling examples of proof that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The problem is that the dating using the decay of radio isotopes is not consistent. Even using isochron dating.The best estimate of the earth's age comes from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. Using the rate of radioactive decay of uranium, scientists calculated that the earth is 4.56 billion years old.
Fundamentals of radiogenic isotope geology
Radioactive nuclides decay with a half-life. If the half-life of a material is 100 years and you have 1 kg of it, 100 years from now you will only have 0.5 kg of it. The rest will have decayed into a different nuclide (called a daughter nuclide). Several radioactive nuclides exist in nature with half-lives long enough to be useful for geologic dating.
Let’s go through an example of calculating the age of a rock with the radioactive nuclide Rubidium-87 (Rb87). This nuclide decays to Strontium-87 (Sr87) with a half-life of 48.8 billion years. Imagine going way back in time and looking at some lava that is cooling to become a rock. It naturally has different concentrations of Rb and Sr in different parts of the rock because these don’t necessarily mix perfectly. This is shown schematically in Figure 1. Once it cools all the way and crystallizes, it is considered “born” and atoms can no longer come in or out of the system. At this point, its radiometric clock starts ticking.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a rock with different concentrations of Rb and Sb throughout.
Though the Rb and Sr concentrations differ, it’s safe to assume that the isotopic makeup of Sr and of Rb is the same everywhere. This is the key to figuring out how much time has passed since the rock solidified. As time goes on, the Rb87 in the rock slowly turns into Sr87. Parts of the rock that have more Rb87 will end up with more Sr87. By measuring a few samples of the rock and comparing the relative amounts of Sr87 and Rb87, we can figure out how old the rock is!
The mathematics of radioactive decay shows us that the number of Sr87 nuclides that exist after some time t is:Sr87now=(eλt−1)Rb87now+Sr87origSr87now=(eλt−1)Rb87now+Sr87orig
We can measure Sr87nowSr87now, Rb87nowRb87now, and λλ, but we can’t measure Sr87origSr87orig (no one was around to measure it back then). So what do we do? We use something called an isochron. If you think about it, the equation above is a lot like the formula for a line, y=mx+by=mx+b with y=Sr87nowy=Sr87now, m=(eλt−1)m=(eλt−1), x=Rb87nowx=Rb87now, and b=Sr87origb=Sr87orig. Because the rock originally had different mixtures of Rb and Sr, we can expect to get different points for each sample we measure, and if all samples have the same age, then we expect to see a straight line (hence the name isochron).
We plot all our measurements and then fit a line through them. The slope of the line can then be solved for tt, giving us the age of the rock. As a bonus, the intercept (bb) of the line tells us the value of Sr87origSr87orig because we know the line was flat when the age of the rock was zero. The animation in Figure 2 shows the flat line and how it increases with time.
Figure 2. The isochrons of the Rb/Sr clock. Note that the values of the axes are actually normalized by Sr86 because the mass spectrometers used to take these measurements are much more accurate at relative values than they are at absolutes. It works because Sr86 is stable and not radiogenic and therefore stays constant with time.
The isochron method can determine the age of any rock, but new rocks are formed all the time. So to figure out the age of the Earth, we have to look somewhere else… in the sky!
The age of the Earth
Earth has a molten magma layer and plate tectonics, so the “closed system” requirement of these radiometric dating methods is sometimes difficult to satisfy for Earth itself. Meteorites, on the other hand, have been floating around in space since the solar system was formed. When they come crashing to Earth, analysis of their composition can be geologically analyzed.
Claire Patterson was the first to accurately date the crystallization of Earth to 4.55 +/- 0.05 billion years ago. He used a lead isotope isochron method using measurements from three different meteorites (lead-206, lead-207 are the eventual decay products of uranium-238 and uranium-235). He then took measurements from the deep ocean that fell squarely on the meteorite isochron, suggesting that the Earth and the meteorites were both created at the same time, 4.55 billion years ago.
Many other methods have been used to date the Earth, with many different sets of radioactive nuclides (and other methods). They are all consistent with Patterson’s measurement. This is how we know how old the Earth is.
The mathematical details of the lead-lead isotopic clock are less straightforward than those of the Rb-Sr method. On the other hand, since only lead is involved (instead of two chemical species), the lead-lead clock is resilient against situations where the samples were recently weathered or otherwise “opened”. We will skip the isochron derivation, but you can find it elsewhere[1]. The end result is that the slope of the isochron with Pb207 concentrations graphed against Pb206 (both relative to non-radiogenic Pb204) is equal to:
m=NU235NU238eλU235t−1eλU238t−1m=NU235NU238eλU235t−1eλU238t−1
Data from several meteorites and from a few terrestrial sources are shown in Figure 3. The data have been replotted from the tables of [2].
Figure 3.The Pb-Pb isochron of several meteorites and deep Earth samples. Since this determines the age of the Earth, it is also known as the Geochron.
The best-fit line shown in Figure 3 has a slope of 0.602459. Unfortunately, the geochron equation above is transcendental, meaning there’s no algebraic solution for it and it has to be solved numerically.
Note that Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207 and that Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206. There are short-lived details in these decay chains, but they don’t matter on the timescales we’re dealing with.
Posted at What are a few simple, compelling examples of proof that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years?
And there are many clocks that show the earth is not billions of years or millions of years old but thousands of years old.
So why are they so disparate?
Because God created everything in 6-days, the worldwide flood and the fall do to sin.
10 Best Evidences That Confirm a Young Earth
Ten strong evidences for the earth’s relative youth that confirm the Bible from geology, biology, paleontology, oceanography, and even astronomy
answersingenesis.org
The problem is that the dating using the decay of radio isotopes is not consistent. Even using isochron dating.
And there are many clocks that show the earth is not billions of years or millions of years old but thousands of years old.
So why are they so disparate?
Because God created everything in 6-days, the worldwide flood and the fall do to sin.
10 Best Evidences That Confirm a Young Earth
Ten strong evidences for the earth’s relative youth that confirm the Bible from geology, biology, paleontology, oceanography, and even astronomy
They refute themselves early on by stating they use the bible as the starting point. It's all circular nonsense.