Evidences given for a young-earth

[gnostic]

The age is usually a conclusion drawn from several sources. It appears that you know this and that the dates of f

Excuse me, SZ, but can you complete this sentence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me, SZ, but can you complete this sentence?

Thanks, I think it was a turkey overdose. I had to cook a turkey yesterday and another today. The brain is not firing on all eight cylinders today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To add on to what @leroy appears to know already. The relative dates of strata were develop long before the absolute dates. It was, as I already pointed out, observed that specific fossils tended to lie in limited beds. That allowed scientists to separate ages based upon what fossils were in those beds. At first there were no hard dates for those. But all of that changed after the various radiometric dating methods were developed. Even today somewhere in the world you will find an active volcano. Eruptions are common on a global basics. Each eruption today and in the past could leave a layer in a local stratum being deposited. That eruption will give a data point for an age of the stratum, which can be identified globally by the fossils in it. Many of those layers could be dated by multiple clocks. And even those that could not could be confirmed by eruptions that were either slightly before or after. To dig up all of the dates involved would be quite the undertaking. So leroy may feel safe in his rather ridiculous demand. One could show multiple examples of a particular ash layer, but how it would be applied would not show up in that article. The application was after the fact. He may be simply trolling at this point.

 

[dad]

"Noah's" flood is not that old.. It dates to the Euphrates River Basin 2900 BC.

Why do you think the laws of nature have changed?

Because in history and Scripture which records the past, there are key differences in what life was like here. Since science doesn't know, there is no reason to doubt it.

 

[dad]

I see. so you are admitting that you are wrong again.

When you want to learn people here can help you.

Obviously you cannot deal with the fact that your belief based dates simply are rejected as such. Not my problem.

 

[dad]

To add on to what @leroy appears to know already. The relative dates of strata were develop long before the absolute dates. .

The dates from long ago, say in the sixties have changed drastically! Changed by billions of years. So yes methods existed to 'date' rocks, or fossils, but don't make it sound like there was agreement!

They use the belief that radioactivity and therefore radioactive decay as we see it today also existed the same in the past.

"Determining the numerical age of rocks and fossils
Unlike relative dating methods, absolute dating methods provide chronological estimates of the age of certain geological materials associated with fossils, and even direct age measurements of the fossil material itself. To establish the age of a rock or a fossil, researchers use some type of clock to determine the date it was formed. Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon, as reliable clocks to date ancient events. Geologists also use other methods - such as electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence, which assess the effects of radioactivity on the accumulation of electrons in imperfections, or "traps," in the crystal structure of a mineral - to determine the age of the rocks or fossils."

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[dad]

That’s not how it work with science.

Yes it sure is.

Radioactive isotopes work, decaying at known rate, eg C14, K40 to Ar40, U238 to Pb206, U235 to Pb207, etc, detected, measured and recorded as observed evidence.

Yes they do work in this present nature. You have no way to know if they worked the same in Noah's day! You just believe real hard that nature was the same.

But you cannot and have not back up your claim with evidence, so it is you who are making baseless claims (claims with no evidence).

Yes here is evidence that science does use the current nature and how radioactivity works here.

"Determining the numerical age of rocks and fossils
Unlike relative dating methods, absolute dating methods provide chronological estimates of the age of certain geological materials associated with fossils, and even direct age measurements of the fossil material itself. To establish the age of a rock or a fossil, researchers use some type of clock to determine the date it was formed. Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon, as reliable clocks to date ancient events. Geologists also use other methods - such as electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence, which assess the effects of radioactivity on the accumulation of electrons in imperfections, or "traps," in the crystal structure of a mineral - to determine the age of the rocks or fossils."
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

The science behind geology, stratigraphy, paleontology, anthropology and biology, isn’t about theism vs atheism, dad. If you look around, a number of arguing against you, are theists, some are Christians, some are Jews and some are Hindus, and some are Baha’i, all of them theism. So it isn’t just atheists or agnostics disagreeing with you.

The 'science' is about belief that nature was the same. Period.

The differences between you (and other creationists) and them (theists who do have experiences with science), is they understand and accepted science and the evidence that back up the science, is you (like every others creationists) don’t even have the qualification to understand the basic concepts of scientific evidence.

Wrong and ridiculous. I understand the 'accepted science' also. I happen to understand it deeply enough to know it is absolutely wholly belief based.

You don’t understand fact or scientific evidence if it punched you in the nose.

It can't even reach my ankles while I walk all over it.

 

[sooda]

Because in history and Scripture which records the past, there are key differences in what life was like here. Since science doesn't know, there is no reason to doubt it.

What key differences are recorded in the past of present? The laws of nature are consistent.

 

[sooda]

Because in history and Scripture which records the past, there are key differences in what life was like here. Since science doesn't know, there is no reason to doubt it.

The laws of nature haven't changed. The earth still orbits the sun. Gravity hasn't changed.

You should be specific.

Scripture is not and was never intended as history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because in history and Scripture which records the past, there are key differences in what life was like here. Since science doesn't know, there is no reason to doubt it.

You do have quite the sense of humor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dates from long ago, say in the sixties have changed drastically! Changed by billions of years. So yes methods existed to 'date' rocks, or fossils, but don't make it sound like there was agreement!

They use the belief that radioactivity and therefore radioactive decay as we see it today also existed the same in the past.

"Determining the numerical age of rocks and fossils
Unlike relative dating methods, absolute dating methods provide chronological estimates of the age of certain geological materials associated with fossils, and even direct age measurements of the fossil material itself. To establish the age of a rock or a fossil, researchers use some type of clock to determine the date it was formed. Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon, as reliable clocks to date ancient events. Geologists also use other methods - such as electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence, which assess the effects of radioactivity on the accumulation of electrons in imperfections, or "traps," in the crystal structure of a mineral - to determine the age of the rocks or fossils."

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

Yes, of course they do. Scientists are not idiots. The evidence says that there was no change. If I remember correctly you ran away the last time I offered to post some evidence.

But as we all know to date you have refused to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously you cannot deal with the fact that your belief based dates simply are rejected as such. Not my problem.

No, you simply refuse to learn why you are wrong. By acting afraid you in effect admit that you are wrong. A person with strong faith would not be so afraid.

 

[leroy]

As I told you have repeatedly, I am not paleontologist, nor a geologist. I am not even a biologist.

Are you any of these? Are you a biologist, a paleontologist or a geologist?

The good news is that you dont have to be a paleontologist nor a geologist, all you have to do is reed their reports when the find a fossil. There you will note that fossils (nor the rocks arround) are usually not dated and when they are dated, usually they wouldn't verify by multiple independent methods.

And as I have said before, if you want to talk about different methods, then I have already told you to look up the “Hell Creek Formation”, because they used stratigraphy methods as well as radiometric dating method.

Well then select your favorite fossil or rock from the HC formation and show that it was dated by multiple independent methods.

 

[leroy]

It appears that you know this and that the dates of fossils are accurate. What beef do you have with those dates?

Because even though I am not a YEC, I am still against people lying and inventing stuff just to make YEC look bad.


To say that ALLLLL fossils are dated by múltiple independent methods is just a lie invented to make YEC look bad.

The good news is that you can still make a good case for an old earth even if you dont
Invent, lie, or exaggerate the evidence.

 

[sooda]

Because even though I am not a YEC, I am still against people lying and inventing stuff just to make YEC look bad.


To say that ALLLLL fossils are dated by múltiple independent methods is just a lie invented to make YEC look bad.

The good news is that you can still make a good case for an old earth even if you dont
Invent, lie, or exaggerate the evidence.

Strata is essential to dating fossils.. The type of rock around a fossil it is one of the multiple ID factors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The good news is that you dont have to be a paleontologist nor a geologist, all you have to do is reed their reports when the find a fossil. There you will note that fossils (nor the rocks arround) are usually not dated and when they are dated, usually they wouldn't verify by multiple independent methods.



Well then select your favorite fossil or rock from the HC formation and show that it was dated by multiple independent methods.

That is because the dating was done a long time ago. You may not know this, but one does not have to reinvent the wheel with every scientific discovery. It appears that you were not paying attention. The correlation has already been done. But if you want to you look at how it was done you can look into the history of dating of volcanic deposits around the world. Your explanation has been given to you. Presently you are either not understanding it or demanding that others do your homework for you.

Here is about a ninth grade level explanation for you:

Radiometric dating

To get the age of any one fossil various means are used, but they may use only one radiometric date. Not all fossils are doubly dated. Not all rocks are doubly dated. Perhaps people were a bit unclear as to that. But here is a question that you need to answer. How many times do you have to check your watch to know that it is reasonably reliable? Dating methods have been cross checked multiple times and found to be reliable. As I said at the start one does not need to constantly reinvent the wheel. A local fossil may be dated by a combination of a K/Ar date and sedimentation rates, or sedimentation rates and measured magnetic reversals. There are all sorts of "clocks" that have already been measured when it comes to fossils.


Why do you ask anyway? The Earth was known to be old long before radiometric dating came along. Some strata directly demonstrate that they are millions of years old with annual deposit variations. The Green River Formation is a varve deposit that has millions of annual layers. Are you looking for excuses to believe a debunked myth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because even though I am not a YEC, I am still against people lying and inventing stuff just to make YEC look bad.


To say that ALLLLL fossils are dated by múltiple independent methods is just a lie invented to make YEC look bad.

The good news is that you can still make a good case for an old earth even if you dont
Invent, lie, or exaggerate the evidence.

Oh, people don't have to do that. YEC's always clearly demonstrate their scientific illiteracy. And technically since the dates rely on past work of multiple independent methods they are correct. They may not be able to show the tests for one particular fossil, but its age does rely on the work of countless earlier tests.

 

[dad]

What key differences are recorded in the past of present? The laws of nature are consistent.

We can't say laws in Noah's day were consistent with today. How would you know, for example whether there were any other forces (fundamental) that used to exist that do not now exist? How would you know if there were some law or force we now see that never used to be here?? How would you know if another set of laws were in place in the far past on earth or not? Certainly not by looking at today's nature only!

 

[dad]

The laws of nature haven't changed. The earth still orbits the sun. Gravity hasn't changed..

I can go along with anything that is known. So you just made two claims. Can you show us how you know these to be true? Can you prove gravity was exactly the same say, 80 million of your imaginary years ago?
Can you show us that no change whatsoever in orbit for the earth ever happened?

 

[dad]

Yes, of course they do. Scientists are not idiots. The evidence says that there was no change. If I remember correctly you ran away the last time I offered to post some evidence.
.

Fantasy. Link?