Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- From: "bullpup" <bullpup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 16:46:43 -0500
<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152390635.989389.4350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 14:57:08 -0700, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx enriched this group
when s/he wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
From "Evolution of California Landscape," bulletin #158, CaliforniaDivision of Mines.
[...]
The Earth's Age
Although the age of the earth has been a much-debated topic for
centuries,
Correct. At one time there were over a dozen different dates. And it
seems that evolutionists continue to coerce people into believing their
current date for the earth and then 10 years or so from now a new date
is secured and the coercion continues on. Party on.
4,500,000,000 years is now the accepted average.
B y whom? Is there a printout of all the scientists that agree to
this date?
Here's just the ones named "Steve":
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
Granted, it's a list of scientists named "Steve" that accept evolution, but
if they accept evolution, the odds are that they also accept a 4.5 billion
year old Earth.
recent improvements in scientific tools have allowed a more
accurate estimate to be made now than ever before.
A commonly stated item is "scientific tools have allowed more accurate
estimates to be made.." when in fact you can't use the standard tools
on recent items of the last 1000 or less years so that accuracy cannot
be tested. In fact, how can accuracy be measured at all?
Liar!
No. You cannot use radiometric dating on items of 10,000 years old.
Why not? Would the results be inconveinient?
Can you produce just one study that does it? I'll be waiting for it.
Enjoy, even if you don't read it, since to do so would expose you to too
many more inconvienient facts:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/4180_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
of
With the advent of
our knowledge of radioactivity, a new means for determining the age
some earth materials was evolved,
Right. That's why you can take samples from one rock and get multiple
different dates. The right piece is anyone's guess.
Liar!
Dude, rocks are composed of matter from all ages compressed, is that
not correct?
In *layers* Besides, sediment that is compressed does not intermix.
and the findings enormously expanded
the known length of earth history.
Actually this is not the case. What is often considered "history" is
not really history. Typically history consists of documents, writings
and inscriptions. But what is being called history is some obscure
torched rock in a cave full of bones where there are no documents.
history
n noun (plural histories)
1 the study of past events.
2 the past considered as a whole. the whole series of past
events connected with someone or something. an eventful past.
But common popular knowledge, and the common definition is paper work.
Use of the word history for old caves (without any inscription) is
misleading. The public is led to believe that there is writing
extending into 10,000 or so years ago when there is not.
What? Are you drinking and posting again?
Evolutionists
know that there is a lot of weasel room in dating methods that don't
rely on written texts, and anyone can just make up an age for an
ancient cave just by changing the digits on the numbers more or less.
No. Often, cave painters use charcoal in their art, so the charcoal can be
tested.
You are under constraint if you're dating areas that have inscription
and pottery.
And?
What is called "Historic Geology" contains no writing whatsoever.
Further, it has been know and predicted that humanists/evolutionists
would push back the length of history because their theories won't work
if the earth is really old. Creationists have been predicting for the
last 30 or so years that evolutionists would push back dates and the
creationists have been right.And it is safe to say that evolutionists
will continue to do so because even at current rates millions or even
several billions of years is not enough for evolution to occur.
Liar!
No it's not. I have a list of dates that show how the earth keeps
getting older all the time.
Has it changed much in the last 50 or so years? Let's see the list.
<snip>
is
During the disintegration of the atoms, the valuable gas helium also
generated.
Interesting because helium escapes rather easily and if the earth were
old as evolutionists say we wouldn't have much helium. But in reality
we have plenty.
Because, as they explained, it is constantly being made by radioactive
decay.
Yes, but that's just the helium escaping and it will continue to do so
and does so rapidly. It's such a slippery substance that it gets
through rock quite easily.
So what? More is being generated via radioactive decay processes.
We also have dinosaur soft tissue parts.
Do you?
I guess it must trouble you that dinosaur soft tissue, (pontificated as
being millions of years old) exists. Evolution and old age theory is
just a crock as proven by this tissue.
Wrong.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html
Read the section entitled : "Why was the soft tissue preserved?"
lead-isotope
Radium itself decomposes into other elements, so that we
have a radioactive series. The final product of this natural change
seems to be one of the isotopes of lead. Isotopes are varieties of
elements having the same atomic numbers, virtually the same chemical
properties, but differing slightly in atomic weights. The
informed from decay of parent radioactive elements apparently does not
break up, and the rate of decomposition has been accurately measured
uraniumterms of the half period of decay. Therefore if an uranium- or
thorium-bearing mineral is present in a rock, the ratio of the
rocksand thorium content and the helium and lead isotope content can be
determined. Only minerals from fresh or relatively fresh volcanic
can be used, for in these alone the significant mineral grains have
been altered or disturbed to the least extent and material of mixed
source is not present.
Which all have been shown to give contradictory dates.
Liar!
No it's not. Geologist simply call these aberrations "discordant."
Discordant is a common word used in such studies. So don't call me a
liar.
You are a liar, since the "discordant" dates (which probably are not as
"common" as you think") has not been a facter in *all* (your claim) examples
of radiometric dating.
And even fresh
lava gives vastly old dates.
Liar!
The best you can do? You haven't even read all the evidence and here
you pop-off? In order to make such a claim you have to have read ever
single study on rocks dated to make that claim.
Maybe you are just ignorant, then, and not being dishonest. The only reason
that fresh lava (and only from certain areas) give "vastly older age"
results is due to crystals which had not melted in the lava as it melted
it's way through the crust. If the lava has a temprature of 1,000 deg F,
and the mineral crystal has a melting temprature of 1,500 deg F, and the
surrounding rock is low enough melting point, the crystal will melt free,
and float around in the lava, much the same way a water ice cube can float
around in a vat of liquid nitrogen without melting (if water ice floats in
Liq. Nitrogen)
So you can't date per lava. If lava
penetrates young rock the lava measured would be vastly old and give a
false impression.
Liar!
Yes it wood. You can even go to a live volcano and collect old dates
there.
Because it took in crystals from the older rock.
Boikat
.
- References:
- Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- From: Desertphile
- Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- From: mccoy
- Re: Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- From: mccoy
- Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- Prev by Date: Re: I recommend this analysis of Dembski's "No Free Lunch"
- Next by Date: Re: Focus on the Family: I'm No Monkey's Brother
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- Next by thread: Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
