If The Age of The Earth is Billions of Years ...

[Willamena]

The same sadness I feel for those who so ignorantly proclaim with such conviction and certainity,where we come from ,how many we were, how long we existed and what we looked like, it's just simply amazes me that intelligent people follow the hypothesis

Do you proclaim certainty in God and Creation?

If so, then know that evolution is proclaimed with equal certainty, and that there are no answers to ",where we come from ,how many we were, how long we existed and what we looked like," nor why you use commas in incorrect places in sentences.

 

[Popeyesays]

Why does belief in evolution as a model for biological diversity deny that there is a Creator?

I deo not believe thqat intelligent design is a scientific model, butr neither do I feel that evolution dnies a Creator or a Creator deny evolution.

It is a "both/and" answer, NOT an "Either/Or" answer.

Regards,
Scott

 

[fantome profane]

Is there not a great irony when an evolutionist uses carbon dating and other similar assumptions (for example, to estimate the age of the universe) and yet claim that retroactively using human population growth doesn't work?

No, it is not ironic at all. Not if you know the difference between life, and half-life.

 

[Aasimar]

Is there not a great irony when an evolutionist uses carbon dating and other similar assumptions (for example, to estimate the age of the universe) and yet claim that retroactively using human population growth doesn't work?

Are you serious? I have powered a nuclear submarine on the assumption that radioactive isotopes decay at specific rates, and they always do. Every time. Without fail. The most accurate clocks in the entire world are based on radioactive decay. Tested over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. For the love of pete, please please please read what it is you are attempting to debunk, the accuracy of radiometric dating is absurd. And DAMN I hate when "Carbon Dating" is used alone. Look, here's a few dating methods.

Potassium-Argon Dating:

Potassium-40 is radioactive and decays into daughters Argon-40 and Calcium-40 at 11.2/88.8% ratio. It is always constant, that rate has not ever changed.

t = h x ln[1 + (argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
where t is the time in years, h is the half-life, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.

however, Potassium-Argon Dating can be innacurate in very limited cases as can all types of radioactive dating, due to various factors. Therefore the best method of Radiometric dating is to use multiple methods and compare them. A list of Radiometric Dating methods includes:

Argon-Argon Dating
Rubidum-Strontium Dating
Samaryium- Neodynium., Lutetium-Hafnium (Which is also used to absorb neutrons in nuclear reactors, fun fact ), and Rhenium, Osmium Dating
Uranium-Lead Dating
And more "Approx 40"

Those have to agree, except in the cases where one method is used to correct another "i.e. Argon-Argon dating can be used to correct a faulty Potassium-Argon reading due to the Argon in the rock not coming form the decay of Potassium but from the ground below it, therefore having Argon but no parent Potassium."

It's much like weighing yourself on 40 different scales that operate on different principles and all 40 give you the same result. Good chance it's accurate.

 

[eudaimonia]

Is there not a great irony when an evolutionist uses carbon dating and other similar assumptions (for example, to estimate the age of the universe) and yet claim that retroactively using human population growth doesn't work?

No, there is no irony whatsoever.

There's a big difference between how isotopes decay and how populations change. The first has great constancy, and the second has great potential variability.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Fluffy]

And you know this how..............?

Hold your horses there roli. You asked given certain factors which you believed evolutionists claim, how can an Old Earth make sense. I retorted that the factors you were using were not claimed by evolutionists at all.

If you want to debate whether evolutionary theory is correct then open a new thread. This one is clearly about whether it is consistent, specifically with population trends.

Is there not a great irony when an evolutionist uses carbon dating and other similar assumptions (for example, to estimate the age of the universe) and yet claim that retroactively using human population growth doesn't work?

No. Just as it is not ironic that a creationist will use the Christian version of creation whilst simultaneously claiming that other religious visions of creation are false.

When we project trends back into the past, we have to have a reason to believe that they will remain consistent. Carbon dating has been observed to remain consistent whilst current human population growth has clear faults.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there not a great irony when an evolutionist uses carbon dating and other similar assumptions (for example, to estimate the age of the universe) and yet claim that retroactively using human population growth doesn't work?

You think using human population growth does work?

Okay, I'll bite... what growth rate would you use to back-calculate the date of the first human pair? What reason do you have to select that rate?

Would you use one constant growth rate? If so, why? The world population growth rate has varied quite a bit even in this past century; what rationale would you have to use a single, constant growth rate that does not change with time?

Would you use a variable growth rate? If so, what rate, and when would it change? Why those rates and those points of change?

So... provide a methodology that's detailed enough to do calculation (i.e. "1.14% constant growth through all human history", "0.5% for 3000 years, then 2% for 3000 years" or something like that) and - this is the important bit - a logical, rational, fully-supported argument why that methodology would give us an accurate result, and we'll do the math and see what it says.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When we project trends back into the past, we have to have a reason to believe that they will remain consistent. Carbon dating has been observed to remain consistent whilst current human population growth has clear faults.

I agree. Population growth has varied by ~50% just within the past few decades. OTOH, radioactive decay is so consistent that they use it to control the most precise clocks in the world.

 

[kmkemp]

Irony doesn't imply truth. But, let's consider the many responses so far. There are many dating techniques (<sarcasm> thank you to the person that pointed that out </sarcasm>). Some supposedly are good for thousands of years and some for much longer. What is the maximum that we are able to test it ? Hundreds of years? Maybe a few thousand ? That hardly makes it a proven scientific fact when the claim is that it can go back much farther and still be constant. All that we can really show (not even prove) is that it is consistent for the very short-term past. From that, we ASSUME (and that is the whole point) that it is constant back through time.

 

[kmkemp]

I noticed that no one took up the case for the failed assumptions made about the age of the universe.

Good read: Oops ... Wrong Answer - TIME

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I noticed that no one took up the case for the failed assumptions made about the age of the universe.

Good read: Oops ... Wrong Answer - TIME

Old read. The article's from 1994. If you want a good synopsis of the current consensus on the age of the universe, have a look at the UCLA web site here.

Please note that in both your article and the UCLA site, the lower range of all estimates of the age of the Earth is significantly greater than the 4.55 billion year age of the solar system, which has been established within ~1% for some time now.

 

[kmkemp]

Old read. The article's from 1994. If you want a good synopsis of the current consensus on the age of the universe, have a look at the UCLA web site here.

Please note that in both your article and the UCLA site, the lower range of all estimates of the age of the Earth is significantly greater than the 4.55 billion year age of the solar system, which has been established within ~1% for some time now.

We only know that it was a "failed" assumption because it was made in the past. Why would you expect me, not a scientist (well in this sense at least), to prove a current theory wrong??

 

[kmkemp]

And besides, this is all based on an even larger assumption that the Big Bang Theory is true. And probably countless others that I have no clue about.

 

[camanintx]

There are many dating techniques. Some supposedly are good for thousands of years and some for much longer. What is the maximum that we are able to test it ? Hundreds of years? Maybe a few thousand ? That hardly makes it a proven scientific fact when the claim is that it can go back much farther and still be constant. All that we can really show (not even prove) is that it is consistent for the very short-term past. From that, we ASSUME (and that is the whole point) that it is constant back through time.

True, we are assuming that all of these methods are consistent beyond the time period we are able to directly test them. But if they all prove to be equally consistent, doesn't that support the assumption?

 

[yossarian22]

Irony doesn't imply truth.

:areyoucra

But, let's consider the many responses so far. There are many dating techniques (<sarcasm> thank you to the person that pointed that out </sarcasm>). Some supposedly are good for thousands of years and some for much longer.

Half life range from about 6000 years (its closer to 5800 years actually) and a few hundred million years. The rate of decay for a nuclear reaction is constant.

What is the maximum that we are able to test it ? Hundreds of years? Maybe a few thousand ? That hardly makes it a proven scientific fact when the claim is that it can go back much farther and still be constant. All that we can really show (not even prove) is that it is consistent for the very short-term past. From that, we ASSUME (and that is the whole point) that it is constant back through time.

And it is not an unreasonable assumption. Can you demostrate a single radioactive element that naturally decays at a non-constant rate?

 

[yossarian22]

double post

 

[kmkemp]

:areyoucra

Half life range from about 6000 years (its closer to 5800 years actually) and a few billion years. The rate of decay for a nuclear reaction is constant.

And it is not an unreasonable assumption. Can you demostrate a single radioactive element that naturally decays at a non-constant rate?

That is completely avoiding the point. Yes, it is a reasonable assumption that dating techniques have a much larger error than currently believed. Why? Well, I have already stated the why. Let's take population growth for the last 10 years and pretend that that is all that we are able to test. Just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that it is at least constant with a small deviation. Now, we know NOW that that doesn't hold true for hundreds of years ago much less thousands. But if the last 10 years is all of the information we had to go on, we could not reasonably assume that it was true for all of history. Similarly, there is a great risk we take when making dating assumptions. Let's say that we have some relics that we are absolutely positive of their dates from even say 2000 years ago (I'm sure there are such relics). How can we make the claim that we can just tens of thousands of years back based on that short term data? Even if it is perfectly consistent, we don't have any means of backing that up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We only know that it was a "failed" assumption because it was made in the past.

Yes, as we gather more evidence, we get a clearer picture of how things work. This is what we call "science".

Why would you expect me, not a scientist (well in this sense at least), to prove a current theory wrong??

I don't, and I'm not sure how you got that impression.

 

[Autodidact]

Irony doesn't imply truth. But, let's consider the many responses so far. There are many dating techniques (<sarcasm> thank you to the person that pointed that out </sarcasm>). Some supposedly are good for thousands of years and some for much longer. What is the maximum that we are able to test it ? Hundreds of years? Maybe a few thousand ? That hardly makes it a proven scientific fact when the claim is that it can go back much farther and still be constant. All that we can really show (not even prove) is that it is consistent for the very short-term past. From that, we ASSUME (and that is the whole point) that it is constant back through time.

Radiometric dating has been calibrated to 45,000 years using varve analysis, and remains constant to that age. Do you know something about physics that should cause the world's physicists to think it would suddenly change after that time. In any case, without using radiometric dating, and only counting varves, we already know the world is much older than YEC holds.

 

[camanintx]

That is completely avoiding the point. Yes, it is a reasonable assumption that dating techniques have a much larger error than currently believed. Why? Well, I have already stated the why. Let's take population growth for the last 10 years and pretend that that is all that we are able to test. Just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that it is at least constant with a small deviation. Now, we know NOW that that doesn't hold true for hundreds of years ago much less thousands. But if the last 10 years is all of the information we had to go on, we could not reasonably assume that it was true for all of history. Similarly, there is a great risk we take when making dating assumptions. Let's say that we have some relics that we are absolutely positive of their dates from even say 2000 years ago (I'm sure there are such relics). How can we make the claim that we can just tens of thousands of years back based on that short term data? Even if it is perfectly consistent, we don't have any means of backing that up.

Aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

Projecting population growth rates into the past is unreasonable because we cannot predict factors such as war or plague which significantly affect the equation.

The decay rate of certain isotopes however, are very well understood and predictable, unless you find our current understanding of atomic theory lacking.