how does a YEC explain trees that are 50,000 years old.

[J Bryson]

There's no such thing as measuring.

"I will say, sir, with all due respect, that there is no such thing as YOU!"

-Mr. Banks, Mary Poppins

 

[Autodidact]

So your saying that every scientist has the same opinion on the age of the earth?

No, there is nothing that every scientist has the same opinion on, including that the earth revolves around the sun. I'm saying that there is scientific consensus on this, that >99% of geologists agree on it, and it is as settled as anything ever is in science.

I could explain it, but this wiki article does it better. Short answer: radiometric dating of meteorites.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can you show me the workings out of how these geologists and physicists reached that conclusion?

From: Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.

Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies)."

 

[Alceste]

How so? Do you mean the distinction between look-back time and look-back distance?

I think Angellous might mean our concept of a "year" is determined by the speed at which the earth completes an orbit of the sun. Since this solar system has only been around for a fraction of the time the universe is believed to have existed, and the rates of planetary orbits around stars are not "fixed", earth years are meaningless in the context of the age of the universe.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

3) Reality doesn't matter because we're all going to die anyways.

I love how this is put - the phrase "reality doesn't matter."

 

[painted wolf]

True... but it is a handy benchmark for us. We have a solid grasp of the concept of "a year".

Even if the numbers involved are mind bogglingly large.

wa:do

 

[Katzpur]

I would like to know how a YEC explains how these prehistoric tree have been on earth for up to 50,000 years when the earth is no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Easy. They insist that the tree is really only 500 years old, and they say that any evidence you may show them to prove them wrong is flawed.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think Angellous might mean our concept of a "year" is determined by the speed at which the earth completes an orbit of the sun. Since this solar system has only been around for a fraction of the time the universe is believed to have existed, and the rates of planetary orbits around stars are not "fixed", earth years are meaningless in the context of the age of the universe.

Gotcha!

 

[Alceste]

True... but it is a handy benchmark for us. We have a solid grasp of the concept of "a year".

Even if the numbers involved are mind bogglingly large.

wa:do

Do we? What's a year? 360-some-odd rotations of the earth, delimited by our estimated orbit around the sun?

If the numbers are mind-bogglingly large anyway, why bother pretending human time can be a measure of cosmic time? There are (potentially) infinite star satellites in the universe, each with their own individually calculated orbits and rotations. Apart from that, (it the big bang theory is correct), none of these satellites, or their gravitational centers (stars) existed at the birth of the universe (or the place where the universe begins, since time and space are essentially the same thing in physics).

On top of this, gravity impacts the behavior of time-space. I won't pretend I have enough of a grasp on physics to explain how that works. To be honest, I find it ridiculously confusing, but even my inability to understand it makes sense, since me and all my ancestors, right back to the singular cell that kicked it all off, have never known any sense of time but for the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun.

Nevertheless, that's not how it is. Earth-time is irrelevant in a universal context. There are infinite "times". And (possibly), no such thing as time at all, but only the ceaseless whirling of orbs around other orbs.

So "time", as we know it (hours, days, months, years) is meaningless in the context of the "age" of the universe. I am not a physicist, but I believe the "age" of the universe is a guess, made by naked monkeys, who do not understand the concept of infinity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do we? What's a year? 360-some-odd rotations of the earth, delimited by our estimated orbit around the sun?

Assuming we're talking a siderial year (since this is mainly astronomic calculations), how about this definition for "year":

One year is 31,558,150 seconds, where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

Yes, this is arbitrary, but it is precise.

If the numbers are mind-bogglingly large anyway, why bother pretending human time can be a measure of cosmic time?

It's not a matter of pretending. It can be.

There are (potentially) infinite star satellites in the universe, each with their own individually calculated orbits and rotations. Apart from that, (it the big bang theory is correct), none of these satellites, or their gravitational centers (stars) existed at the birth of the universe (or the place where the universe begins, since time and space are essentially the same thing in physics).

Yes, it's arbitrary what units you choose to express the age of the universe, but for any particular unit you pick, there's one answer.

On top of this, gravity impacts the behavior of time-space. I won't pretend I have enough of a grasp on physics to explain how that works.

I'm no physicist either, but my impression is that relativistic effects may have a huge impact on our assumptions about the very early start of the universe, but after the initial "bang", things quickly settled down that relativity wouldn't change our answers beyond the margin of error anyhow.

So "time", as we know it (hours, days, months, years) is meaningless in the context of the "age" of the universe. I am not a physicist, but I believe the "age" of the universe is a guess, made by naked monkeys, who do not understand the concept of infinity.

The moment at which the Big Bang occurred can be identified with decent precision. Whether you want to say that the universe existed before that is up to you. Like I said before, a lot of it's semantics: the meaning you should give to a given event (for example, the Big Bang) might be a matter of some debate, but the time at which the event happened is settled to a high degree of precision.

 

[CaptainBritain]

From: Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.

Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies)."

Well like the man in an orthapedic shoe I stand corrected, but thats fine like I said before im not that fussed on the age of the earth, though that was a great post.

 

[painted wolf]

If the numbers are mind-bogglingly large anyway, why bother pretending human time can be a measure of cosmic time?

Because I like to know what part of history I'm working with when I discuss fossils.
Just because the thought of the vastness of history boggles my mind, that doesn't make me not want to try to understand it. If even in just my own limited way.

So "time", as we know it (hours, days, months, years) is meaningless in the context of the "age" of the universe. I am not a physicist, but I believe the "age" of the universe is a guess, made by naked monkeys, who do not understand the concept of infinity.

I'm sure those versed in physics better than I could argue this... likely with red shift and other measurements. Regardless, we know the age of the Earth regardless of what we label the measurement we use for it.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Because I like to know what part of history I'm working with when I discuss fossils.
Just because the thought of the vastness of history boggles my mind, that doesn't make me not want to try to understand it. If even in just my own limited way.


I'm sure those versed in physics better than I could argue this... likely with red shift and other measurements. Regardless, we know the age of the Earth regardless of what we label the measurement we use for it.

wa:do

Ah well all that stuff I said about earth years having no meaning in the context of the vastness of the universe doesn't apply to the age of the earth itself. If it was here, then earth years had meaning. I was kind of thinking of scale. We don't measure a year in seconds - measuring the age of the universe in earth years makes just as little sense to me. It would be better to measure the age of the universe by the average lifespan of a star, or something.

 

[painted wolf]

4.5 billion years is a long, mind boggling time... not quite as much as 13.65 - 13.8 but still.

What size star? Stars don't have set lifespans. HE 1523-0901 has been dated to be just about as old as the universe itself. 13.2 billion years old. Yet it is a second generation star.
Others burn so hot and fast that they last but a short time. Like the first generation stars that provided the material for HE 1523-0901.

So star age is a poor measurement, even when averaged.

Granted it is more poetic.

wa:do

 

[logician]

Speaking of time, geological ages have always fascinated me, I live in an area with mainly Mississippian age rock formations, with rare Devonian outcrops, (sorry, no dinosaurs in these).

Here's a link to a rather detailed table of geological ages.

Geologic Ages of Earth History

 

[CaptainBritain]

4.5 billion years is a long, mind boggling time... not quite as much as 13.65 - 13.8 but still.

What size star? Stars don't have set lifespans. HE 1523-0901 has been dated to be just about as old as the universe itself. 13.2 billion years old. Yet it is a second generation star.
Others burn so hot and fast that they last but a short time. Like the first generation stars that provided the material for HE 1523-0901.

So star age is a poor measurement, even when averaged.

Granted it is more poetic.

Hang about forgive me if im doing horrid things to the thread by asking unrelated questions but its worth the telling off.

From point dot ie a second ago no universe then whollup we are off how long do the scientists reckon it took this very old star to take shape?

Is this the oldest star we know of?, and im guessing there are older we do no know of.
Did stars happen instantly in terms of the length of time we are talking?
ie within a few thousand or million years of the supposed big bang.
I know the picture may not be 100 percent clear but whats the current thinking.

 

[painted wolf]

Like death, the birth of stars is not fixed in time frame. Some "stars" flicker on and off as they gain and loose mass... never fully becoming true stars capable of maintaining a reaction.

HE 1523-0901is the oldest star we currently know of but it isn't the only Population II star out there.

MWC 349 may be as young as 1000 years old.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Speaking of time, geological ages have always fascinated me, I live in an area with mainly Mississippian age rock formations, with rare Devonian outcrops, (sorry, no dinosaurs in these).

Here's a link to a rather detailed table of geological ages.

Geologic Ages of Earth History

I'll forever have the geological time scale memorized- my geology prof. bumped up the final grade if we could write out the era, period, sub-period, etc., correctly, including the spelling.
It was hard but I managed to memorize it, and to this day I have the epochs PEOMPPH rattling around in the back of my brain:
Paleocene
Eocene
Oligocene
Miocene
Pliocene
Pleistocene
Holocene

 

[longshanks]

What shocks me is that despite the ready and available facts, YEC believers are a growing sect.
In America and Australia in particular, which is profound, Australia provides an entire continent of evidence that blows YEC 6 day, flood, babel theory out of the water.
It boggles the mind.

 

[FFH]

There are prehistoric Kauri trees that are from 36,000 to 50,000 years [C-14 dating] old that are buried in a peat swamp in the North Island in New Zeland. These trees have survived the centuries in an underground resting place, sealed in a chemically balanced environment that has preserved the timber in a perfect wood condition. These trees grew for nearly 1500 years before they were buried and covered in a peat swamp, some have a girth of 40 ft. and as long as 200 ft. For the last 20 years they have been making beautiful furniture from these recovered trees.

I would like to know how a YEC explains how these prehistoric tree have been on earth for up to 50,000 years when the earth is no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

The flaws of carbon and radiometric dating: SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT RADIOCARBON DATING