How old is the earth

We have gone through this before, and after all our discussion and all my reading on his site, it always comes down to I don't understand it. Could you please show me either the evidence I ask for. This evidence should be available from every single periodic object in space. Or could you please explain in some detail where I am misunderstanding.

The time slowdown comes directly from the ideas. It is in fact an important part of how he tries to explain certain observations. What I am asking for seems pretty simple to me. You claim I am misunderstanding. If the data does not exist, please show me in terms we can all understand where my misunderstanding comes from and why the expected data really is not expected. It is a simple request. Either a wealth of data or a solid explanation of why expected data really is not expected at all.

 

UTE, please read what you want on the Discussions page and then feel free to ask specific questions. The points you mentioned before here are all dealt with there. Please read first and then come back with some specific objections or questions. He has a response to the idea of 'time slowdown' there. Thank you.

 

UTEOTW,

I dont need to demonstrate anything. I have a detailed, word for word account of how the beginning of the universe took place, from the creator Himself. He then gave us geneologies leading all the way back to the beginning.

It is up to those who believe there have been millions of years to prove there have been millions of years. So far they havent. Anymore than they have proved the ridiculous fairy tale of evolution took place.

Here is an excerpt from and article, with a link following...
--------------------------------------------------

NEW RATE DATA SUPPORT A YOUNG WORLD
- IMPACT No. 366 December 2003
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved

New experiments done this year for the RATE project1 strongly support a young earth. This article updates results announced in an ICR Impact article last year, and documented at a technical conference last summer.3

Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a num-erical prediction we published several years before the experiments.4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years.

Thus these data are powerful evidence against the long ages of uniformitarianism and for a recent creation consistent with Scripture. Here are some details:..."[/i]
--------------------------------------------------

Link...http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-366.htm

God bless,

Mike

 

4.5 Billion years - plus or minus 4,499,994,000 years. In fact - make that "minus".

God's Word turns out to be "correct" and thus the Gospel is "true".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Massive "assumption". If you dig in the earth today and assume that the Indian artifacts are "as old as the rocks they found near them" you get the wrong date.

So in the recent findings that date artifacts found in "sand" to be millions of years old - where do you think they get their guesswork from?

When the rock itself does not "please" evolutionists as was the case in the recent findings they use pigs teeth - found "elsewhere" to date their hominids.

All fascinating stuff if you ask me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You might want to learn a few facts about Dating Techniques. Young Earth Creationism is based on its own set of "presuppositions" on Bible interpretation, not on the rightly-divided literal wording of Genesis. </font>[/QUOTE]Scientist agree among both atheists and Christians - the natural/normal reading of Genesis 1-2 has always been 6 days of work - one day of rest.

The Summary God gives of the Gen 1-2 timeline in Exodus 20 equates the 7 day week of Gen 1 with the 7 day week of Sinai at the time of the Exodus.

Even evolutionist Orthodox Hebrew Scholars "Admit this" today. Almost all atheist scientist find this to be "obvious" and all Creation-consistent Christians do as well. The recent efforts to compromise the Gospel based on the mythologies of evolutionism is a more recent trend in our 6000 years of human history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is this the part where we look at Helium in Radioactive Rock layers?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Excellent!

BobRyan and D28Guy both point to the RATE group and their helium "experiment." It is always fun to discuss the RATE group. Their findings can usually be shown to be dishonest. Like trying to carbon date a diamond. They get a date that says that the diamond is older than carbon dating can determine. Because of background radiation, the "date" was about 50,000 years which in carbon dating only means older than 50,000 years but we cannot tell how much older. Since diamonds are millions of years old they dishonestly present this as a problem for dating. The only problem is that they either accidentally or deliberately misunderstand the date.

Then there was the case were they present a new volcanic rock for dating by a method that only only be used on item a few million to a few billion years old. Since the rock is only a few years old, it dates to a few hundred thousand to a million years old. Now, according to the method, this is a date of zero years because the method cannot be used on dates that young. They ignore this and again present it as a problem with radiometric dating although the actual problem is with how they report the data.

Now the helium. I have covered this elsewhere. But, let's say that from what I have read on the subject, they ignored the smoothest, most reproducable of the data they gathered because it fit with an old earth and used only a small fraction of noisy, unreliable data to draw their conclusions. The RATE helium study shows nothing relevant outside of the ability of the members to do good work in the field.

 

"Massive "assumption". If you dig in the earth today and assume that the Indian artifacts are "as old as the rocks they found near them" you get the wrong date.

So in the recent findings that date artifacts found in "sand" to be millions of years old - where do you think they get their guesswork from?"

I believe I was clear that you have to use a bit of geology to get good dates. Of course, if you find something in a sedimentary rock, the grains of sediment will be much older than the object itself. Did you thing geologists were that dumb? But that does not mean that there are not ways around that. Now, if you would raise an objection to how dates are really gathered rather than a strawman of how dates are gathered we can take at look at your objections.

"When the rock itself does not "please" evolutionists as was the case in the recent findings they use pigs teeth - found "elsewhere" to date their hominids."

Could you present a reference so I can know what you are talking about?

"It is up to those who believe there have been millions of years to prove there have been millions of years."

I present radiometric dating as evidence of billions of years. Feel free to object and we will discuss the objections.

 

Radiometric dating is fine for referencing atomic processes. However it has not been constant, and in Genesis 1:14, God told us to use the sun, moon, and stars for our dating -- meaning orbital time. This has been relatively constant since creation -- certainly more so than radio decay rates.

 

I just attended a lecture where the evolutionist demonstrated whale bones discovered in a rock quary - however they are not embedded in rock - they are simply buried in the ground. The bones are dated at 5 million years according to the scientist. When asked HOW they were dated - the answer is "there were OTHER fossils found at that layer and we have AGREED to consider THOSE fossils to be 5 million years old - so this whale is 5 million years old.".

Clearly - "guesswork piled upon guesswork". Notice - what can be found in "in sand" and dated as 3.5 million years old?

How much daughter product was in the rock when God initially formed it? And how do you know? How much "daughter product" was "needed" for a stable Planetary geostable eco-system and have you tried making a planet without daughter product in the planet's crust as a starting condition?

In Christ,

Bob

 

"The bones are dated at 5 million years according to the scientist. When asked HOW they were dated - the answer is "there were OTHER fossils found at that layer and we have AGREED to consider THOSE fossils to be 5 million years old - so this whale is 5 million years old."."

Thank you for explaining to us how index fossils work. This is a great way to date things that are found in rocks that cannot be dated by other means.

Let me give the simple explanation to fill things in a bit more. It may not be perfect, but it is what I am qualified to give. When we look a layers around the world, we find that certain fossils are only found in very narrow regions of the geologic column. So sometimes you are able to identify cetain groups of these fossils, found together, and only through a very narrow range. Whenever a particular group of fossils is found in a layer than can be dated, the dates are always the same. The layers containing these fossils are never dated to different ages and layers of a certain date never contain these type of fossils from a different age. (Yes, I oversimplified that, but you get the idea.) Now, since you repeatedly find that a certain group of fossils are only found in layers of a specific age, when you find these same fossils in layers that you cannot date directly, you can use these fossils as indexes back to layers you can date. You use these specific objects to tie things together. This was what was done in the example you gave. Index fossils were used to date the layer and the age of the layer was then used to date the fossil in question. Very straight forward and logical. I believe the discovery of these index fossils was what led initially to the discovery of the geologic column.

"How much daughter product was in the rock when God initially formed it?"

I do not know. Neither it is a necessary piece of information for dating purposes.

 

I do not know. Neither it is a necessary piece of information for dating purposes.

Say WHAT?????

 

Helen

"please read what you want on the Discussions page and then feel free to ask specific questions. The points you mentioned before here are all dealt with there. Please read first and then come back with some specific objections or questions. He has a response to the idea of 'time slowdown' there. Thank you."

I went back and read much of the material again. There were some things marked "New" I had not seen before. Admittedly, if the subheading did not appear promising, I mostly scanned looking for relevent material. What I found mostly convinced me that my question is on the right track. I also found one glaring mistake.*

There is a lot of talk about the different speed that things governed by atomic processes would have had. The most relevent question was answered "Since many atomic processes are faster proportional to c, but the slow motion effect at the point of reception is also operating, the combined overall result is that everything seems to proceed at the same unchanged pace ... Therefore no astronomical evidence for a slow motion effect in atomic processes would be expected."

There is a good discussion of why under the discussion about SN1987A. As I said earlier, this slowdown effect is a critical part of what Barry has to say. But let's look as his example of a supernova occuring when the speed of light was 10 times its current value. The light curve of a supernova is mostly dependent on the decay of certain isotopes. Now the rate of decay would be ten times higher but the higher speed of light would cause a ten fold slowdown in how the process appears to run to an observer. Therefore, the light curve would look normal. But a process that was not atomic would not be affected by the changing speed of light and would therefore have been running at its normal speed. It would be subject to the same tenfold slowdown and would appear to an observer to be operating ten times too slowly. This is why I focus on non-atomic processes.

Now he also tries to say that "First of all, pulsars are not all that distant, the furthest that we can detect are in small satellite galaxies of our own Milky Way system. Second, because the curve of lightspeed is very flat at those distances compared with the very steep climb closer to the origin, the change in lightspeed is small. This means that any pulsar slowdown rate originating with the changing speed of light is also small." I assume that this logic can be applied to any objects within the Milky Way or its nearby galaxies.

Here is the problem. The curve may be flat compared to the rest of the curve, but there still must have been significant change. Think of it this way. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. For light to have traveled that distance in 6000 years, the average speed must have been at least (100000 / 6000 = 16.7) 17 times as fast as it is now. Since the speed is decaying, the initial speed must have been much, much more than 17 times the current value to get that average value. (Your charts also show meausurable change in the speed of light in the last few hundred years which should have produced observable effects in objects within a few hundred light years.) Let's use 100 for arguments sake. I think we should be able to tell that something in our galaxy is running 100 times more slowly than it should.

Again, I present the example of an eclipsing binary. We can measure their distance apart. We can use spectroscopy to determine their spectral type and therefore their masses. The distance between them and their masses leads to a direct calculation of their orbital period. Surely we should be able to tell that the period is off by a few percent and certainly that they are of by several factors or even orders of magnitude. All my reading of Barry's work says this is an obvious prediction. So why is it not seen? This a purely orbital clock and should be completely unaffected by slowing light except for the slowdown effect to the observer. The effect should be seen in every object of this type, the discrepancy should be able to be predicted in advance, and the discrepancy should increase with increasing distance in a predetermined way. Now, what have I missed?

Now specifically concerning pulsars, since I mentioned that, he attempts to get out of it by saying "The third point is that the mechanism that produces the pulses is in dispute as some theories link the pulses with magnetic effects separate from the star itself, so that the spin rate of the host star may not be involved. Until this mechanism is finally determined, the final word about the pulses and the effects of lightspeed cannot be given." Now, unless the pulse is a purely atomic process, there should be some changes in period involving cDK. Though I will grant that it could be possible the change in spin rate could swamp the changing effect from changing light speed. On the other hand, if the pulse is not a purely atomic process, the distant pulsars should still be seen going much more slowly than the nearby ones. This is not seen. In fact, I thought the fastest known pulsar was in the LMC.

Just rambling on, there should be all sorts of weird effects due to process that are mixed atomic and non-atomic. Think of a variable star, for example. Obviously, there are going to be atomic processes involved, but many other processes will also be involved. Rather than the predicability we see in ceratin types of variable stars, there should be really strange effects observed as the atomic and non-atomic processes interact to cause the periodic variability. There seems to be a lot of different types of processes for which this would be true.

*"Nevertheless, which ever option is adopted, the main effect of dropping values of c on quasars is that as c decays, the diameter of the black hole powering the quasar will progressively increase. This will allow progressive engulfment of material from the region surrounding the black hole and so should feed their axial jets of ejected matter. This is the key prediction from the cDK model on that matter."

First let's look at where the energy of a quasar comes from. The great gravity of the supermassive black hole causes material to fall towards it. As the matter falls towards the black hole, the pull of gravity will increase the speed of the material and flatten it into a flat disk, an accretion disk. The close to the black hole, the faster the material moves. This difference in velocity causes friction between adjacent areas. Tremendous friction in the case of a quasar that superheats the material and releases large quantities of radiation. This radiation is the energy we see coming from the quasar. As the material nears the black hole, it passes what is known as the event horizon. This is the point where the escape velocity from the gravitational well of the black hole equals the speed of light. Once inside this limit, neither the material nor the radiation it is emitting can escape the black hole. Though strangely, nothing special happens at the event horizon to the matter. Note that this is a non-atomic process. Just gravity.

So, with a higher speed of light the event horizon would have been closer to the black hole. This is because you would have to be deeper into the gravity well of the black hole for the escape velocity to be equal to the higher velocity. As light slowed, it is the event horizon that would expand. I have seen him mention in other places the Schwarzschild radius when discussing this topic which gives assurances that he is talking about the event horizon.

Now an expanding event horizon would gobble up no more material for the black hole. It does not affect the gravity of the system. And the material is being pulled in solely by gravity. The only effect of an expanding event horizon would be a slight dimming of the quasar as part of the accretion disk emitting the radiation is placed within the region from which its radiation cannot escape. This may not even be true as the increased energy from the inner accretion disk may have been pushing material away from the rest of the accretion disk, slightly lessening the energy thus released. The overall effect of an expanding event horizon should be minimal. The "key prediction from the cDK model on that matter" seems to be incorrect.

 

Isochron dating methods do not make an assumption on the initial amount of daughter material.

 

Here's an easy way to put a minimum on the age of the Earth:

Reef coral grows about 0.2cm per year. Coral atolls are growing up from the rims of slowing sinking volcanoes in the sea. As the volcano sinks, the coral grows fast enough (usually; there are some "failed" atolls that sank too fast) to keep pace. The result is many layers of coral rock on top of igneous rock.

At Enitiwok atoll, the Navy drilled cores that showed almost a mile of coral before reaching volcanic rock. How long (assuming perfect conditions) has coral been growing at Enitiwok?

Anything less than perfect conditions would mean that the island was not sinking as fast as the coral was growing, and this would give us too young an age.

 

Isochron dating methods do not make an assumption on the initial amount of daughter material. </font>[/QUOTE]from Barry:
Yes, ostensibly the isochron method is used to overcome problems with daughter element concentrations. You are essentially correct in what you mentioned about not needing the daughter elements. However, the isochron method introduces other problems which can give rise to false isochrons in a way outlined by Dave Plaisted in his analysis of radiometric dating here:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

and in particular, please note his section on isochrons: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Isochrons

If anomalous concentrations of any of the isotopes occurred initially, then a false isochron will be produced, with misleading results such as those obtained with Hawaiian lavas.

Some creationists have attempted to invalidate the whole isochron method by simply calling it a 'mixing ratio.' However those proposing this initially appear to have some real problems with what they are proposing.

Regarding your other remarks concerning any slow-down effect in the speed of light discussion, the values which you are using are totally hopeless. You really are not understanding what is happening. I want to spend a little time getting some examples for you to help you understand what is being referred to. I cannot do this immediately as I am leaving for two weeks in Australia tomorrow, but it will be on my list of things to do and I will get to it. I thank you in advance for your patience.

 

A good case in point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Please name one fossil that is ONLY found in one region of the mythical column (a column for which we have in fact no single example BTW).

In Christ,

Bob

 

That was interesting.

Basically the evolutionist's "game" is in switching assumptions with different methods - and so it is a game of "tracking the assumptions" when it comes to evolutionist tactics --

In Christ,

Bob