How old is the earth

[UTEOTW]

More fun!

Originally posted by mud:
In response to UTEOTW's assertion that no science shows a young earth: there are many different ways of measuring physical process and extrapolating backwards to arrive at a date for the earth.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

The spiral shape is caused by density waves in the galaxy, not by bands of stars staying in a static line for ages.

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

The comets are resupplied from further out in the solar system. Perhaps you remember the Stardust spacecraft flyby of comet Wild 2 recently. If I remember correctly, it is only on its fifth flyby of the sun after the gravity of Jupiter disturbed it from its ancient orbit and sent it sunward. Or perhaps you read about the recent discovery of the large, icy body Sedna. Some believe it may be the first object of the Ort cloud discovered as its orbit takes it over twenty times as far away from the sun as Pluto. There is a large supply of new comets in the Kuiper belt and the Ort cloud. We have observed many objects in the Kuiper Belt. We can get a good idea of where new comets came from (and yes we regularly observe new comets on their first pass through the solar system) by their orbit.

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

Some of the sediment compacts. Some turns to rock. Some is subducted back into the mantle. If the earth is young, then why is there essentially no sediment where scientists are telling us that the sea floor is spreading apart, forming new crust? And why is the sediment the thickest the furtherest from where the new crust is forming?

4. Not enough sodium in the sea

Morton, Glenn, 1996. Salt in the sea. This report showed that the rate of sodium entering the oceans was equal to the rate at which it is being removed. Na is in equilibrium and you cannot tell for how long. Therefore it is no good for dating. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

There is a reason AIG only gives Na rather than the complete list from their source. The numbers come from taken the total amount of a given species in the ocean and dividing by the rate at which it is flowing into the ocean. It does not take into account how they are removed nor that most species can be shown to be in equilibrium. By this method, Al shows the earth to be only 100 years old. Fe, 140 years. TI, 160 years. Cr, 350 years. Th, 350 years. Do you any of those make sense? Do you see that other processes are at work? Do you see that AIG is hiding and misrepresenting the evidence?

5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast

The magnetic field is cyclical. The magnetic field lines in the rocks in places where new crust is being formed, such as the spreading at the mid Atlantic ridge, record multitudes of times where the magnetic field has decayed, temporarily disappeared, and then reappeared but with reverse polarity. If you watch the news, you may have seen where we recently observed this happening on the sun.

6. Many strata are too tightly bent

Ah, but rocks can fold quite nicely when it happens slowly enough.

See the following: Friedman, M., Hugman, R.H.H. III, Handin, J., 1980. Experimental folding of rocks under confining pressure, part VIII -- forced folding of unconsolidated sand and lubricated layers of limestone and sandstone. The Geological Society of America Bulletin 91: 307-312
and
Johnson, Kaj M. and Arvid M. Johnson, 2002. Mechanical Analysis of the Geometry of Forced Folds. Journal of Structural Geology 24(3): 401-410.
http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/pdf%20Files/AnalysisOfForcedFolds.pdf
http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/39/35/57/32/27/abstract.html

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’

I'm not sure I follow this one. But AIG's record has not been very good so far on this list.

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years

The whole polonium halo thing is too long to get into and so complicated that I think your eyes would glaze over if they have not already.

If you are interested see

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

9. Helium in the wrong places

Helium has had plenty of opportunity to escape. They must ignor the helium that is ionized in the upper atmosphere and removed along magnetic field lines. When this is taken into account, the atmospheric helium is what one would expect.

The helium found in the rocks is there because it is constatly being made by radiocative decay.

10. Not enough stone age skeletons

Fossilization is quite a rare occurance.

11. Agriculture is too recent

Argument from incredulity. How should he know how long it would take humans to come up with certain ideas?

12. History is too short

Argument from incredulity. How should he know how long it would take humans to develope the need for a written language?

This list is taken from an article at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Check it out for more info.

Typical AIG stuff. Not much evidence but a whole lot of hand waving to get your attention. Too bad they have nothing of actual evidentiary worth once they have your attention.

Does anyone have any data that shows a young earth? My assertion seems to be holding true.

 

[BobRyan]

As I already posted - simply tossing out half-excuse forms of rationalizations does not delete the offending "data" that stands in the way of evolutionisms doctrines.

Your statement that there "is no data" opposing your mythology - is patently false and your half-responses above simply serve to illustrate the point.

Why not just "admit the truth" you (obviously) choose your beliefs in evolutionism inspite of the young-earth geochronometer data and not "because of it".

It is obvious to everyone else - surely you have the intellectually integrity to admit what everyone else can easily see.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jim Ward]

I sure see a lot of smoke and hor air from the old earth side. Lots of water jello, no substance at all.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
As has been pointed out here there are a lot of geochronometers pointing to a young earth.

None of those clocks were found to be ticking as the poster would have us believe. Still no evidence for a young earth.

The flaw in evolutionism's devout faithful is that they deceive themselves into thinking that when they "rationalize-any-old-answer" to an obvious problem 'that deletes the opposing data against their view'.

If you think my answers are not correct, then show where the error is. If you cannot, then I stand by my responses.

Then they can come up with such absurd statements as all the available evidence must be denied, discounted, and disregarded to accept a young earth

I stand by the statement. You still cannot come up with anything to show a young earth or created kinds. Nor can you come up with any problems with the prevailing scientific view. All I see is denying of the evidence.

I have covered the anomaly topic before. you think if you find one anomaly that you can over turn all of science. That is not how it works. You have to explain the vast wealth of data, not find one or two things that cannot be explained. I continually present things that cannnot be refuted by the YECers. Why does not any ONE of them settle the issue if you think the anomalies you search for would settle it.

How can you live with such blatantly false assertions?

You have not shown them to be false assertions yet.
How can you live with the dishonesty of the YEC leaders. You never answered my question of what you thought of their tactics.

Here's another chance.

You claimed dino blood. A_Christian was kind enough to post a link to the actual scientific paper. At least one of them. If you think Wieland was characterizing the work of Schweitzer correctly, then you should have no problem digging out the part of the paper that shows actual red bloodcells and young bone. If you cannot do so then do you admit that Wieland was mischaracterizing her work?

As a followup, what do you think of the evidences posted on this thread of other YEC leaders twisting the truth, at least in my opinion? If you think they were being honorable and truthful, then defend some of their claims that you abandoned after they were countered. If you think that they were not being honest, then say so. I'd like to know what you think.

Why won't you answer?

 

[UTEOTW]

"As I already posted - simply tossing out half-excuse forms of rationalizations does not delete the offending "data" that stands in the way of evolutionisms doctrines."

"I sure see a lot of smoke and hor air from the old earth side. Lots of water jello, no substance at all."

If those statements were of value you could refute my statements. The impartial reader will notice how easily the young earth arguments fall by the wayside with the slightest scrutiny. But there is not even a half-hearted attempt to defend the young earth arguments.

In reality, I have not offered "half-excuse forms of rationalizations" but have offered proof that the assertions were false. My answers were short because the technique used was a shotgun approach without even the benefit of an argument in the authors own words. If you want an in depth discussion, pick a topic you think shows a young earth and we can have at it.

Again, the evidence is denied because it cannot be countered.

If you do not like the way I refute the "evidence" how would you prefer I do it?

 

[Jim Ward]

Your evidence has been refuted. Whose problem is it that you chose to ignore the facts for a false beleif? Sure isn't ours.

 

[UTEOTW]

I don't see it.

There was a list of clocks. I showed how the logic and evidence behind the clocks were completely wrong. I do not see anyone showing where the things I posted were incorrect.

Did I miss a post?

"Whose problem is it that you chose to ignore the facts for a false beleif?"

The earth is old. The facts bear that out. Do you have young earth facts you are holding back?

Why do you deny evidence you cannot refute?

 

[jcrawford]

UTEOTW:

"jcrawford, do you have anything to support you assertion?"

Yes. One has to pre-suppose in one's own mind (as a fundamental premise) that the Universe actually existed 20,000 years ago in order to mathematically extrapolate current information (data) gathered in the present era under present physical conditions.

One of the false premises in geology is called the Uniformitarian Principle which maintains that all geologic phenomena which occured in the past can be no different than which gradually occur now. It was the historical victory of Lyell and Hutton over the cataclysmic viewpoint.

There's no way to prove anything about the geological history of the earth. All one can do is adopt a philosophical attitude towards the subject and draw 'scientific' conclusions based on one's original philosophical assumptions and premises. It's called circular reasoning in the philosophy of logic.

 

[jcrawford]

UTEOTW:

"Maybe there is yet another way to ask this question. If you did not have the Bible and you were to examine the evidence that has been gathered, what would be your opinion on these matters and why?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is really an excellent question and could probably be answered in several ways by several different respondents.

The Bible is available for everyone to read and contains a lot of historical truth and wisdom. Everyone is free to use the Bible as their starting point for aquired knowledge or to reject it. If one rejects the Bible as a divine revelation about human history then one is forced to seek elswhere for truth in knowledge.

Without the aid of divine revelation to interpret history one is left to figure out the world for oneself or to adopt the philosophies and 'scientific' beliefs of others who have 'searched' for truth before one was even born.

Another really interesting question which may confront the believer in evolution is why so many former scientists who once did believe in evolution have come to the conclusion that the evolutionary philosophy is only a tautology based on the circular reasoning which results from drawing conclusions from the original premises without any truly scientific evidence for such conclusions.

Evolutionists have been vainly trying to prove something which only exists in their imaginations in the first place. The problem is with the philosophy of science which evolutionists employ. They should have realized by now that Heisenberg's 'Uncertainity Principle' in sub-atomic physics must certainly apply to the study of apes and humans too.

If it is impossible for an observer to witness the mass and velocity of a particle at the same time then how is it possible for an ape to evolve into a human being when all time is relative and specially conditioned upon the spacial position of the observer?

 

[jcrawford]

UTEOTW:

"The earth is old. The facts bear that out. Do you have young earth facts you are holding back?"
++++++++++++++

Old age is in the eye of the beholder just like beauty. Age can be measured by the moon, the sun and the stars. The only trouble for old-age theorists is that the moon, sun and stars would have had to have been there prior to written human history. Computers spew out garbage based on the garbage input and mathematical calculations about 'deep' space are only mental extrapolations occuring in the human mind.

Let me see the world as it was 'one million' years ago. I want to taste it, touch it, hear it and really 'feel' it. If I can't, it's not within the realm of empiricism and every notion of it is pure fantasy and intellectual fabrication.

 

[BobRyan]

The Earth is young.

All the facts bear that out.

Mud has provided a "few" of the available examples of data showing this to be the case.

Originally posted by mud:
In response to UTEOTW's assertion that no science shows a young earth: there are many different ways of measuring physical process and extrapolating backwards to arrive at a date for the earth. The ones we always hear about give long ages for the earth (ie: radioactive dating methods). Apparently there are about 100 different ways to get ages for the earth and, a great majority of these "geochronometres" give ages much younger than the "accepted" 4.5 billion years. A few examples follow:
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
9. Helium in the wrong places
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
11. Agriculture is too recent
12. History is too short

Though the facts are undeniable - that does not mean there are no "excuses" and "half-answers" available in response to the data.

In the mean time - the fact that the data supports the Bible "Will just have to do".


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The age of the oceans may be calculated from data concerning the total amount of salts present in the oceans, and the rate at which the salts are accumulating in the oceans.5 These salts are transported from land into the ocean by the river systems of the world. Uranium salts are being carried into the oceans over 100 times as fast as they are being removed by salt spray and other means, in contrast to other salts such as those of sodium and aluminum which are now entering and leaving the ocean in more or less equal amounts.

Thus uranium content can be the basis for an estimate of the age of the oceans.6 The estimated total uranium dissolved in ocean water is about 4 billion tons. The amount carried into the oceans annually is about 21,200 tons. Of this some 85 percent is taken up by various sinks or absorbed by ocean sediments and rocks. This leaves about 3,180 tons to be added each year to the uranium dissolved in the ocean waters. Assuming that there was no uranium in the ocean waters at the time of their formation and that the rates involved were roughly constant, we can estimate the maximum age of the oceans. The present uranium content divided by the annual increase is 4,000,000,.000/3.180 = 1,260,000 years. This "age" is much smaller than the 4.5 billion years embraced by evolutionary scientists.

In Christ,

Bob

[ March 20, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

There is, however, another process occuring on the moon which should have produced much moon dust. British astronomer R.A. Lyttleton of Cambridge University had proposed in 1950 that the action of ultraviolet light and X-rays upon moon rocks should continually spall off surface layers to produce dust.23 He estimated the rate of this process to be a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. If only 0.00001 inches of dust were produced annually for 4.5 billion years, the result would be about 375 feet of dust! No such dust layer exists, even in the lunar seas (large low-lying areas) into which electric fields and solar wind would tend to sweep loose dust. Thus the lack of lunar dust still is suggestive of a young moon that is not billions of years old.

 

[BobRyan]

Dr. Larry Vardiman's technical monograph, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere, published in 1990, is the most recent survey of the helium problem.9 The atmosphere now contains about 4.1 billion tons of He-4. It is estimated that about 2400 tons per year of He-4 is released from the crust into the atmosphere. The theoretically calculated rate of escape of He-4 from the atmosphere into space averaged over an eleven-year solar cycle is only about 70 tons per year.10 This is only 1/33rd of the rate of inflow from the crust. If we assume a zero content of He-4 in the original atmosphere, the maximum age of our atmosphere calculated from these figures is only about 1.8 million years. On the other hand, if the earth were 4.5 billion years, the atmosphere should contain 2,500 times its measured content of helium. Joseph Chamberlain and Donald Hunten at the close of a detailled examination of atmospheric helium concluded, "The problem will not go away and it is unsolved."

Chamberlain, Joseph W. and Donald M. Hunten, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Edition (Academic Press, new York, 1987), p. 372.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Mississippi River dumps about 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year. If that river were millions of years old, the Gulf would have been long since filled. By measuring the rate of growth of the delta (about 250 feet per year) its age calculates to about 4000 years.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />by UTEOTW:

"jcrawford, do you have anything to support you assertion?"

Yes. One has to pre-suppose in one's own mind (as a fundamental premise) that the Universe actually existed 20,000 years ago in order to mathematically extrapolate current information (data) gathered in the present era under present physical conditions.
</font>[/QUOTE]JCrowford, that's a interesting assertion on your part, but do you have any reasons for that assertion? Let me clue you in on the actual history. Men of science began studying astronomy and geology believing the earth was about 6000 years old and found out the EVIDENCE pointed to a vastly greator age.

One of the false premises in geology is called the Uniformitarian Principle which maintains that all geologic phenomena which occured in the past can be no different than which gradually occur now. It was the historical victory of Lyell and Hutton over the cataclysmic viewpoint.

And they did a very good job of explaining the things they could document about geology by means of the "uniformitarian" principle, and showed how these same structures in the earth were not consistent with a single flood being the cause of all the geological formations.

There's no way to prove anything about the geological history of the earth. All one can do is adopt a philosophical attitude towards the subject and draw 'scientific' conclusions based on one's original philosophical assumptions and premises. It's called circular reasoning in the philosophy of logic.

Naah. Observing how fast the pacific ocean plate moves today and measuring that against the Hawiian Island chain and finding out a projected age for the creation of the different islands is not circular logic, its just a straightforward calculation. Finding out that the age of the islands as revealed by radiological methods is consistent with the first determination is not circular reasoning; its a valuable check on the other, completely independent line of reasoning.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The age of the oceans may be calculated from data concerning the total amount of salts present in the oceans, and the rate at which the salts are accumulating in the oceans.5 These salts are transported from land into the ocean by the river systems of the world. Uranium salts are being carried into the oceans over 100 times as fast as they are being removed by salt spray and other means, in contrast to other salts such as those of sodium and aluminum which are now entering and leaving the ocean in more or less equal amounts.

Thus uranium content can be the basis for an estimate of the age of the oceans.6 The estimated total uranium dissolved in ocean water is about 4 billion tons. The amount carried into the oceans annually is about 21,200 tons. Of this some 85 percent is taken up by various sinks or absorbed by ocean sediments and rocks. This leaves about 3,180 tons to be added each year to the uranium dissolved in the ocean waters. Assuming that there was no uranium in the ocean waters at the time of their formation and that the rates involved were roughly constant, we can estimate the maximum age of the oceans. The present uranium content divided by the annual increase is 4,000,000,.000/3.180 = 1,260,000 years. This "age" is much smaller than the 4.5 billion years embraced by evolutionary scientists.

In Christ,

Bob

Uhh - Bob - did you know that half the uranium would go away all by itself in just 710 million years? Its called radioactive decay.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Evolutionists have been vainly trying to prove something which only exists in their imaginations in the first place. The problem is with the philosophy of science which evolutionists employ. They should have realized by now that Heisenberg's 'Uncertainity Principle' in sub-atomic physics must certainly apply to the study of apes and humans too.

If it is impossible for an observer to witness the mass and velocity of a particle at the same time then how is it possible for an ape to evolve into a human being when all time is relative and specially conditioned upon the spacial position of the observer?

Kind of an interesting mishmash of theories you threw out here. Please be assured that even in quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity theory there is still such stuff as cause and effect and some events definately preceding other events. There is more ambiguity than was formerly realized, but not everythihg is completely ambiguous!

Are you under the impression that relativity and quantum mechanics somehow rule out having ancestors or having descendants? That would be a silly kind of science indeed!

Did you write that tongue in cheek or were you serious? It's hard for me to tell.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
The age of the oceans may be calculated from data concerning the total amount of salts present in the oceans, and the rate at which the salts are accumulating in the oceans.5 These salts are transported from land into the ocean by the river systems of the world. Uranium salts are being carried into the oceans over 100 times as fast as they are being removed by salt spray and other means, ...
In Christ,

Bob

Uhh - Bob - did you know that half the uranium would go away all by itself in just 710 million years? Its called radioactive decay. </font>[/QUOTE]Uhhh - do you realize that 100xrate of outflux more than compensates for "divide by 2 every 710 million years" ?? Even if the half life were ONE year - the 100x rate would more than compensate.

So... sadly for now, the data does support the Bible account. How awful that must be for our atheist believers in evolutionism - the question is - why are Christian evolutionists also sad to see such a thing?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob when you quote word for word like that and do not give the reference, it is considered plagarism. I think it also violates Board policy because it can get them in copyright trouble.