• 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.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, there is consensus but consensus doesn’t always translate as correct. Yesterday’s consensus has been corrected with new science.
That will always happen. But you are probably paying attention to the wrong things. Yes, ideas are shown to be wrong all of the time. They are very rarely shown to be totally wrong. What we see are answers that are usually more and more correct. If you look at people complaining about how the speed of light has changed you will notice something. Yes, it changed, but the changes kept getting smaller and smaller as the speed of light became more and more accurate. That is how science works. It is never right, it is merely more accurate.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.

I will not click on a known lying source of a self-admitted group of pseudoscientists, they took themselves out of the argument by making their workers swear that they would not follow the scientific method. But you could always try to use their claims, but then you will have to find reliable sources to support them.

But if you only post a link to AiG you have already admitted that you are wrong.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
main-qimg-8f86f50d620baf1026fc68d29ed2a5cb

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.
main-qimg-21c7bbae87213442182c74df4deb7a13

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].
main-qimg-8347dad1b06f657c2c361aa80d24357f-pjlq

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?
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.

i provided reliable peer reviewed scientific information. You deferred to a fake story about magic written by goat herders.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
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.
main-qimg-8f86f50d620baf1026fc68d29ed2a5cb

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.
main-qimg-21c7bbae87213442182c74df4deb7a13

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].
main-qimg-8347dad1b06f657c2c361aa80d24357f-pjlq

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?

i provided reliable peer reviewed scientific information. You deferred to a fake story about magic written by goat herders.
Sorry but the scientists are wrong because they use the false assumption of uniformitarianism.

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.



 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sorry but the scientists are wrong because they use the false assumption of uniformitarianism.

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.



Sorry but science is real and your god is fake—conjured up by ancient goat herders who didn’t know any better at the time. They were just trying to make sense of the world. Conversely, you should know better.
 

Eddi

Wesleyan Pantheist
Premium Member
Sorry but the scientists are wrong because they use the false assumption of uniformitarianism.

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.



Why do you always post links to disreputable sources?

Just because they have a website doesn't make them an authority

You may of well have posted links to pictures of human excrement
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Why do you always post links to disreputable sources?

Just because they have a website doesn't make them an authority

You may of well have posted links to pictures of human excrement
In this case it is you that are posting links to sites that unfortunately keep using the same false assumption of uniformitarianism.
That was always false science. Catastrophism is real science.
 

Eddi

Wesleyan Pantheist
Premium Member
In this case it is you that are posting links to sites that unfortunately keep using the same false assumption of uniformitarianism.
That was always false science. Catastrophism is real science.
Oh right, you say they're false therefore they're false, yet more wilful ignorance

It is hilarious that you call "a fictional character from a book did it by magic" science and call actual science false

And WTF is "uniformitarianism"?
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Oh right, you say they're false therefore they're false, yet more wilful ignorance

It is hilarious that you call "The Big Man In The Sky did it by magic" science and call actual science false

And WTF is "uniformitarianism"?
God created all things is the answer to the origin of all things.
 

Eddi

Wesleyan Pantheist
Premium Member
God created all things is the answer to the origin of all things.
No

God is the cause of all things

But science is how we study reality

You have rejected the study of reality

You are not interested in truth

You care nothing for it and are opposed to all efforts to understand reality

Your world is a fictitious one

And the sad thing is that science doesn't invalidate God

People like you give believers a bad image, that's why all your ignorant and stupid posts really **** me off

You do not represent believers, you need to snap out of that delusion
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
No

God is the cause of all things

But science is how we study reality

You have rejected the study of reality

You are not interested in truth

You care nothing for it and are opposed to all efforts to understand reality

Your world is a fictitious one

And the sad thing is that science doesn't invalidate God

People like you give believers a bad image, that's why all your ignorant and stupid posts really **** me off

You do not represent believers, you need to snap our of that delusion
God is the cause of all things and science is the study of reality.
That part you got right,
But you went down hill from there.
 

Eddi

Wesleyan Pantheist
Premium Member
God is the cause of all things and science is the study of reality.
That party you got right,
But you went down hill from there.
Yes, you said it........

And you reject science, you have made that abundantly clear

You therefore reject the systematic study of reality, you simply don't want to know, you don't care

You don't give a **** about understanding reality

You do not value it one bit you love ignorance and superstition that is what you support, that is what you stand for

And you make believers look bad

People think you represent believers and you do not
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sorry but the scientists are wrong because they use the false assumption of uniformitarianism.

It is false? Who proved that it was false?
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?

Citation needed. And from a reliable source. Creationist sources do not count since they have to swear that they will not follow the scientific method. When one does that the source becomes useless for scientific debates.
Because God created everything in 6-days, the worldwide flood and the fall do to sin.

There does not appear to be any reliable evidence that supports that.


Oh my, just liars for Jesus? You don't have any real sources?
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
It is false? Who proved that it was false?


Citation needed. And from a reliable source. Creationist sources do not count since they have to swear that they will not follow the scientific method. When one does that the source becomes useless for scientific debates.


There does not appear to be any reliable evidence that supports that.

Oh my, just liars for Jesus? You don't have any real sources?
Can you prove this accusation ?
Are they purposefully lying?
Are they making up evidence?

Long age dates from radioactive dating is just not accurate.
a lava flow from the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption had 2.7 billion years for the age

 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Can you prove this accusation ?
Are they purposefully lying?
Are they making up evidence?

Long age dates from radioactive dating is just not accurate.
a lava flow from the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption had 2.7 billion years for the age

It is my understanding that those ages for the Mt St Helens lava dome were derived from purposefully using a test that was inadequate on samples less than 2 mya, but would supply the desired, erroneous answers. That isn't science. Calling it circular reasoning is charitable. Deception is more accurate.

You've been deceived again it seems.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Hi Kenny

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you on the latter.

I may have swept up your statement by overgeneralizing it with similar claims I have read on this forum and others. I apologize if I have mischaracterized your intent.

It is my belief, that God has granted us gifts of senses and fine minds to reason with and learn and a universe to learn from Having done this, it seems reasonable to me that He would want us to and not want us to seal ourselves into the understandings of ancient people with less knowledge. Rather build on what they learned and learn more.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Can you prove this accusation ?
Are they purposefully lying?
Are they making up evidence?

Long age dates from radioactive dating is just not accurate.
a lava flow from the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption had 2.7 billion years for the age

Once again, xenocrysts in this case, but Steve Austin is so dishonest he might even ignore a xenolith. Yes, Steve Austin is a known liar for that work. He does have a PhD in geology. There is no way that he would be that mind blowingly stupid. He had to know that the false dates were caused by xenocrysts and yet he pretended to not even know what those were.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It is my understanding that those ages for the Mt St Helens lava dome were derived from purposefully using a test that was inadequate on samples less than 2 mya, but would supply the desired, erroneous answers. That isn't science. Calling it circular reasoning is charitable. Deception is more accurate.

You've been deceived again it seems.
One has to be extremely careful dating recent volcanic rock. Especially in a violent explosion you are going to pick up all sorts of debris from the surrounding rock. Xenocrysts and xenoliths are foreign (xeno) crystals and rock from older rock in volcanic deposits. It is common enough so that my Google spellcheck recognizes those terms. It did not like "xeno" the prefix on its own. Just a little bit of contamination in an exponential dating method will throw the date way off.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
One has to be extremely careful dating recent volcanic rock. Especially in a violent explosion you are going to pick up all sorts of debris from the surrounding rock. Xenocrysts and xenoliths are foreign (xeno) crystals and rock from older rock in volcanic deposits. It is common enough so that my Google spellcheck recognizes those terms. It did not like "xeno" the prefix on its own. Just a little bit of contamination in an exponential dating method will throw the date way off.
It is not just lava flows.
Supposedly very old things not C-14 dead
Very long dates for know recent things.
And very inconsistent dating on the same thing.
But dating something 2.7 billion years that was just 10 years invalidates the technique
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Very possible, there is no time within the realm of light
What?

There are a lot of questions here. Science starts with many assumptions but not many answers.
Examples....?

I disagree and science cannot confirm that.
It can and does.

"Taken individually and collectively, population genomics studies strongly suggest that our lineage has not experienced an extreme population bottleneck in the last nine million years or more (and thus not in any hominid, nor even an australopithecine species), and that any bottlenecks our lineage did experience were a reduction only to a population of several thousand breeding individuals. As such, the hypothesis that humans are genetically derived from a single ancestral pair in the recent past has no support from a genomics perspective, and, indeed, is counter to a large body of evidence."

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.
This was posted by somebody else a while back and it neatly explains why a worldwide flood, as described in Genesis, couldn't have happened:

 
Top