The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[gnostic]

My opinion would not really count for much, by itself, and plenty of people have made me aware of that...that's a big reason why I try to keep my mouth shut and let professional scientific articles speak for themselves...

I will interject comments here and there, if I feel something is not being covered in any debate or article...

I see nothing wrong with copy and paste debates, with some personal thoughts interjected here and there....

And there lay your problem. You are not examining what you have learned. You are not thinking for yourself.

Also this is a forum. Most of people here preferred to hear opinion, whether they are good ones or bad ones. I have the tendency to avoid long cut-and-paste.

 

[FFH]

And there lay your problem. You are not examining what you have learned. You are not thinking for yourself..

Okay I think from the last few posts I think I have a better idea of what people want...more dialogue...I'm just not one for a lengthy drawn out conversation, just my disposition...

I would rather type than talk though, so here goes...

How would someone with an old earth opinion explain the low levels of sediment, found on the ocean floor, and in some places none at all..

According to scientists there should be, in the deepest areas, at least 2,000 feet of sediment, yet there is not even anywhere near that amount...

Please explain, anyone...

Here's a good article I posted earlier on this subject...but still looking for a better one than this because this one seems to wander a bit...

Sorry for a lack of a better link here it is again...
Let The Oceans Speak

 

[Tiberius]

The claim about ocean sediments. Even if we say that the rates of sedimentation in the ocean today point towards an Earth younger than the several billion year figure given by scientific analysis, it would still point to an age of 30 million years - far longer than your 13000 year figure. Even the far younger age given in point 4 HERE only indicates twelve million years, still far older than your 13000 year claim.

You are forgetting that the ocean floor is constantly being replaced as the tectonic plates move. In areas like the mid Atlantic ridge, where new seafloor is being formed, the sediment is thin to nonexistent. Closer to the coast, there is about 150 million years of sedimentation. See HERE and HERE for more.

Also, note that the argument that the levels of sediments indicates a young Earth is assuming that the sediment is only removed by subduction. This is not true. Some sediment deposited on the continental margin can become part of the continent itself if the sea level falls or the land is uplifted. Some calcium and organic sediments become biomass or ultimately dissolve. Some sediment becomes compacted as it deepens, so its volume is not indicative of the original sediment volume. Some sediment is "scraped" off of subducting plates and becomes coastal rocks.

Finally, tectonics involves ocean basins forming and spreading, but it also involves them closing up again (the Wilson cycle). When the basins close, the sediment in the oceans is piled up on the edges of continents or returned to the mantle. Much of British Columbia was produced when the Pacific Ocean closed a few hundred million years ago and land in the ocean accreted to the continent. See HERE for more.

 

[lombas]

Peep.

Evolutionary creationism.

 

[FFH]

The claim about ocean sediments. Even if we say that the rates of sedimentation in the ocean today point towards an Earth younger than the several billion year figure given by scientific analysis, it would still point to an age of 30 million years - far longer than your 13000 year figure. Even the far younger age given in point 4 HERE only indicates twelve million years, still far older than your 13000 year claim.

Well, it looks as if the creationists are attributing the greater amounts of sediment, 400 meters or 1200 feet, to the flood....

It seems the flood has made the earth, in many places, look older, because of the many layers of sediment we see throughout the world. A prime example of course is the many layers of sandstone we see deposited in the walls of the Grand Canyon, and other places throughout the world, and the relatively larger amounts of sediment found on different parts of the ocean's floors...

you are forgetting that the ocean floor is constantly being replaced as the tectonic plates move. In areas like the mid Atlantic ridge, where new seafloor is being formed, the sediment is thin to nonexistent.

According to point #4 in this article "The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. The other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulates"

The tectonic plate movement only takes away 1 billion out of every 20 billion tons of sediment deposited each year...

Closer to the coast, there is about 150 million years of sedimentation. See for more.

Both articles refer to radiometric dating, as part of their claim that the oceans are millions of years old...

From the two articles you posted...

From the first article:

"The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways -- measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness".

From the second article:

"The sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening".

I have already shown that radiometric dating is inaccurate.

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

The "Great Flood" is responsible for the various sedimentary layers, and larger ocean deposits, we see throughout the world...

There are great evidences, above and below the earth, testifying of a great world wide flood..

The flood made the earth appear older than it really is, in many places...

Also, note that the argument that the levels of sediments indicates a young Earth is assuming that the sediment is only removed by subduction. This is not true. Some sediment deposited on the continental margin can become part of the continent itself if the sea level falls or the land is uplifted. Some calcium and organic sediments become biomass or ultimately dissolve. Some sediment becomes compacted as it deepens, so its volume is not indicative of the original sediment volume. Some sediment is "scraped" off of subducting plates and becomes coastal rocks.

Sediment will not bind together without heat...

The ocean would prevent solid rock from forming, so close to the surface, because it keeps the sediment cool, which would prevent the necessary heat needed to form solid rock so close to the surface. The sediment would have to be taken deeper into the earth, closer to the mantle or to the mantle, in order to heat the sediment, and bind it together, to form solid rock, then pushed to the surface again, like we see with granite...

 

[FFH]

Peep.

Evolutionary creationism.

Christmas, Easter...

All results of pagan traditions mixed with Christian historical events...

When will we take a stand for either position (evolution or creation), or are we just "lukewarm" and take the middle ground, so as not to ruffle anyone's feathers...

 

[lombas]

Christmas, Easter, etc...

All results of pagan traditions mixed with Christian historical events...

When will we take a stand for either position (evolution or creation), or are we just "lukewarm" and take the middle ground, so as not to ruffle anyone's feathers...

I am making a stand. God gave us reason, and with reason we found the universe has its origin in a Big Bang, is of a certain age, has solar systems &c. The Big Bang used to be quite controversial among scientists, like Einstein, because it proved what major religions had been saying all along.

 

[FFH]

I am making a stand. God gave us reason, and with reason we found the universe has its origin in a Big Bang, is of a certain age, has solar systems &c. The Big Bang used to be quite controversial among scientists, like Einstein, because it proved what major religions had been saying all along.

Yes, and just as the earth, and everything in and on it, formed, so did the car you drive, the computer you're using, the television you own, etc., over eons of time, due to random astronomical and geological events...

All of creation speaks of a creator, who formed/created things no more than 13,000 years ago...

 

[lombas]

Yes, and just as the earth, and everything in and on it, formed, so did the car you drive, the computer you're using, the television you own, etc. form over eons of time, due to random astronomical and geological events...

All of creation speaks of a creator, who formed/created things no more than 13,000 years ago...

A computer, you can create, because you assembly some things with a rational mind. A desert, you cannot. It evolves. That doesn't mean it wasn't formed, it means that things change. So does, in fact, your computer. Put it in a box for a hundred years, curious to see how it looks like.

That's what we call taphonomy in archeology.

 

[FFH]

A computer, you can create, because you assembly some things with a rational mind. A desert, you cannot. It evolves. That doesn't mean it wasn't formed, it means that things change. So does, in fact, your computer. Put it in a box for a hundred years, curious to see how it looks like.

That's what we call taphonomy in archeology.

Nothing in this universe, or in/on this earth is random, but each aspect of creation has a speicific design and purpose...

The natural changes of the earth are necessary and keep the original creation in balance...

 

[lombas]

Of course nothing is absolutely "random". That's why God gave us natural laws. Which he would never trespass, of course.

 

[Katzpur]

When will we take a stand for either position (evolution or creation), or are we just "lukewarm" and take the middle ground, so as not to ruffle anyone's feathers...

Maybe some of us see taking the middle ground as being rational and intellectually honest, FFH. I would personally prefer to be labeled a moderate than a fanatic. But to each his own.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, it looks as if the creationists are attributing the greater amounts of sediment, 400 meters or 1200 feet, to the flood....

You're assuming what you wish to prove. Don't do that.

It seems the flood has made the earth, in many places, look older, because of the many layers of sediment we see throughout the world. A prime example of course is the many layers of sandstone we see deposited in the walls of the Grand Canyon, and other places throughout the world, and the relatively larger amounts of sediment found on different parts of the ocean's floors...

Really? We can tell the differnece between something that was caused by a long period of slow water and a short period of fast water. The Grand Canyon was not caused by the flood.

According to point #4 in this article "The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. The other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulates"

The tectonic plate movement only takes away 1 billion out of every 20 billion tons of sediment deposited each year... Both articles refer to radiometric dating, as part of their claim that the oceans are millions of years old...

And AiG is known for the scientific accuracy, of course...

I have already shown that radiometric dating is inaccurate.

No you haven't.

The "Great Flood" is responsible for the various sedimentary layers, and larger ocean deposits, we see throughout the world...

No it isn't. A rapid influx of water would result in a jumbled fossil record, which is not what we find in real life.

There are great evidences, above and below the earth, testifying of a great world wide flood..

The flood made the earth appear older than it really is, in many places...

Then why do the rocks we bought back from THE MOON show the exact same evidence? Was the flood THAT deep?

Sediment will not bind together without heat...

Sandstone is an igneous rock then, is it?

 

[UnTheist]

A global flood didn't happen because there are many civilizations with uninterrupted historical records before, during, and after the supposed global flood.

Plus, for the radioactive decay, realize there are rocks on mars and the moon that also show approximately 4.5 billion years in age.

 

[FFH]

I have already shown radiometric dating to be inaccurate

No you haven't.

You're right, I haven't personally shown the inaccuracies of radiometric dating, but I've provided a link showing the false readings...

Here's another link...
Age Of The Earth

and another...
Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the Earth

and another...
The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods.

and another...
Radiometric dating relies on assumptions

Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past:

1. The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known.
2. No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions).
3. Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’.

If these conditions could be guaranteed, the radiometric dating method would be correct. However, unless eye*witnesses observed the rock when it formed, and checked it constantly thereafter, it is impossible to guarantee that these assumptions are correct. Indeed, there are manycases in the scientific literature where assumptions one and two, though made in good faith, have been shown to be unreliable.

Constancy of decay rate (assumption three) implies that a parameter which scientists have been measuring for only a century has been constant for millions of alleged years of Earth’s history. This is of course not only unproven but also unprovable. Decay rates (which can vary greatly today under special conditions) may have been much faster in the past; evidence suggesting this is now being analyzed by a creationist consortium.1 A good summary of the documented inconsistencies and inaccuracies of radiometric dating is given by Woodmorappe.2

1. Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mississippi, 2000.
2. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, California, 1999.

A rapid influx of water would result in a jumbled fossil record, which is not what we find in real life.

Dinosaur tracks

Many fossilized dinosaur track patterns suggest that the creatures who made them were fleeing from something; in some cases this may have been a predator. A soft surface capable of receiving foot imprints would be unlikely to retain those prints unless relatively quickly covered by further sediment, such as in a flood catastrophe.

Fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found in these Colorado mines. In Cyprus Plateau Mine (Utah), a fossilized dinosaur footprint was found in the coal seam next to one of the many coalified logs of the plateau. In Kenilworth Mine, eight different types of dinosaur tracks were found.

The pattern of tracks suggests that the animals were fleeing from an imminent catastrophe. Nearby, a huge dinosaur graveyard has been found at Dinosaur National Monument (Vernal, Utah) in Jurassic sediments.

Obviously, the dinosaurs that made these tracks didn’t escape. The catastrophe got them. The collapse of geologic time and the young age for the rock formations confirm that these dinosaurs lived on Earth, at the same time as man, only a few thousand years ago. [Mod Post: this was cut and pasted from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/geologictime.asp]

Sandstone is an igneous rock then, is it?

I understand what you're saying, we need to count the sandstone reefs and other land masses that have formed, over time, as part of the sedimentary deposits, that have accumulated over the years. A perfect example would be the Mississippi delta. So if we count these sedimentary land formations, we would still see much larger deltas, reefs, etc...

If the Mississippi river were millions of years old, it's delta would be much larger than it is now...

 

[Tiberius]

You're right, I haven't personally shown the inaccuracies of radiometric dating, but I've provided a link showing the false readings...

Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past:

1. The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known.
2. No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions).
3. Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’.

If these conditions could be guaranteed, the radiometric dating method would be correct. However, unless eye*witnesses observed the rock when it formed, and checked it constantly thereafter, it is impossible to guarantee that these assumptions are correct. Indeed, there are manycases in the scientific literature where assumptions one and two, though made in good faith, have been shown to be unreliable.

Constancy of decay rate (assumption three) implies that a parameter which scientists have been measuring for only a century has been constant for millions of alleged years of Earth’s history. This is of course not only unproven but also unprovable. Decay rates (which can vary greatly today under special conditions) may have been much faster in the past; evidence suggesting this is now being analyzed by a creationist consortium.1 A good summary of the documented inconsistencies and inaccuracies of radiometric dating is given by Woodmorappe.2

1. Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mississippi, 2000.
2. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, California, 1999.

I'm sorry, I'm not up to all the technical details of radiometric dating. However, I do know that there are many different kinds of radio dating techniques, and these are used as a way to double check the results. It's not possible for a flaw in one technique to match a completely different technique.

Secondly, you've only gathered information from creationist sources. Have you looked at a variety of sources, both creationist and scientific in order to form your opinions?

In reply to your three complaints about the assumptions you believe radiodating must make...

You claim that radiodating assumes initial conditions are know.

1. Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.) With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.
2. For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:
   • K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
   • The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
   • Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
   • Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them.

In response to your second claim that radiodating assumes a closed system...

1. Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions. Nevertheless, many rocks approximate closed systems so closely that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other.
2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.
3. Isochron methods can detect contamination and, to some extent, correct for it. Isochrons are determined from multiple samples, and contamination would have to affect all of the samples the same way in order to create an isochron that appeared okay but was wrong. With uranium-lead dating, closure of the system may be tested with a concordia diagram. This takes advantage of the fact that there are two isotopes of uranium (238U and 235U) that decay to different isotopes of lead (206Pb and 207Pb, respectively). If the system has remained closed, then a plot of 206Pb / 238U versus 207Pb / 235U will fall on a known line called the concordia. Even if samples are discordant, reliable dates can often be derived (Faure 1998, 287-290).
4. Geochronologists are well aware of the dangers of contamination, and they take pains to minimize it. For example, they do not use weathered samples.

Sources:

• Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press. (Contains an understandable explanation of isochron methods.)
• Dickin, Alan P., 1995. Radiogenic Isotope Geology, Cambridge University Press.
• Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons. (This and Dickin 1995 are standard texts.)

Finally, in response to your third claim that radiodating assumes a constant rate of decay:

1. The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).
2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
   • The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
   • Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
   • Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
   • Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).
   • The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

 

[Tiberius]

Dinosaur tracks

Many fossilized dinosaur track patterns suggest that the creatures who made them were fleeing from something; in some cases this may have been a predator. A soft surface capable of receiving foot imprints would be unlikely to retain those prints unless relatively quickly covered by further sediment, such as in a flood catastrophe.

This is ignoring the observed phenomenon of flash flooding in rivers.

Also, if the waters of Noah's flood were so rapid that they are said to have carved the Grand Canyon in less than a year, how is it that they were unable to wash away fresh footprints in soft mud?

Fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found in these Colorado mines. In Cyprus Plateau Mine (Utah), a fossilized dinosaur footprint was found in the coal seam next to one of the many coalified logs of the plateau. In Kenilworth Mine, eight different types of dinosaur tracks were found.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? The article you cut-and-pasted from to fill your post does not give any source from their claim.

The pattern of tracks suggests that the animals were fleeing from an imminent catastrophe. Nearby, a huge dinosaur graveyard has been found at Dinosaur National Monument (Vernal, Utah) in Jurassic sediments.

I will not argue that there were in all likelihood many catastrophes that had dinosaurs fleeing and then being killed in large numbers. However, we cannot claim that this is evidence for a global flood. There are many other possible explanations, including large scale forest fires, flash floods in rivers or dinosaurs being chased by predators into swampy areas they were unable to escape from.

Obviously, the dinosaurs that made these tracks didn’t escape. The catastrophe got them. The collapse of geologic time and the young age for the rock formations confirm that these dinosaurs lived on Earth, at the same time as man, only a few thousand years ago.

You have not shown that the geological time scale has been disproven.

In any case, you have not even attempted to answer my question. If there was a massive global flood, we would not find that all dinosaurs are confined to certain parts of the fossil record. If there were flood waters that formed the fossil record, we would find dinosaurs spread throught the fossil record. Unless, of course, you can suggest an alternative sorting mechanism...?

I understand what you're saying, we need to count the sandstone reefs and other land masses that have formed, over time, as part of the sedimentary deposits, that have accumulated over the years. A perfect example would be the Mississippi delta. So if we count these sedimentary land formations, we would still see much larger deltas, reefs, etc...

If the Mississippi river were millions of years old, it's delta would be much larger than it is now...

And why is it that you assume the Mississippi delta has always existed? The Pacific ocean hasn't always existed, why should a river be any different?

In any case, the Illinoian Glacier, about 200,000 to 125,000 years before present, blocked the Mississippi near Rock Island, diverting it to its present channel farther to the west (current western border of Illinois). Thus, the present course of the Mississippi has been in place less than a million years, so you're claim that we should be seeing something different if it was millions of years old is meaningless.

It seems you do not do your research.

 

[painted wolf]

Many fossilized dinosaur track patterns suggest that the creatures who made them were fleeing from something; in some cases this may have been a predator.

No most trackways show dinosaurs milling around and simply traveling slowing in groups. A few really nice ones show chases.

The pattern of tracks suggests that the animals were fleeing from an imminent catastrophe. Nearby, a huge dinosaur graveyard has been found at Dinosaur National Monument (Vernal, Utah) in Jurassic sediments.

actually they show dinosaurs milling around, many show animals pointing tword trees, likely feeding on them. There are rarely carnivore prints to be seen.

not that actual evidence matters. These same falcehoods will cycle continuously as long as people are desperate to belive them, and unwilling to doubt them.

wa:do

 

[Tiberius]

is it me, or has FFH withdrawn from this debate?

 

[FFH]

is it me, or has FFH withdrawn from this debate?

Sorry some other stuff has been distracting me...

I've read your posts...I just need to take care of some stuff...I've left my taxes until the last minute...

I'm a daytrader and have a bunch of paper work/tax forms I need to fill out...

The deadline of April 17 is the only thing motivating me to get this/it done...

It's been hard for me to focus on this with taxes on my mind...sorry...

Will get back to this...