Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion


Dana Tweedy wrote:
<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152390641.950384.229940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snipping

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 a partial list at this site:
http://www.ne-aipg.org/NEDirectory.pdf

This list starts with the phrase "alphibetical" which is a mispelling.
What, did your fellow just construct this in time for some great
rebuttal? This is just a membership list of people and has nothing to
do with any consensus. Who is the one who came up with the 4.5
billion date, who are the people who examined the hypothesis and what
are the tests that confirmed it? Then who are the scientists who tested
it further and then agreed upon the date? The fact be told is that the
date is found in many textbooks and it did not get subject to any
rigorous treatment. A kid sitting behind the book read the date, grew
up to be a scientist and assumed the date to be true without even
bothering to test the date.



More can be found at:
http://www.aapg.org/
http://drl.wi.gov/prof/geol/bpo.htm
http://www.geosociety.org/index.htm

These aren't consensus on the age of the 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.

Yes, you can, if you have the proper equipment.

Tell me about this equipment.




Can you produce just one study that does it?

how about a dozen?

Direct radiometric dating of hydrocarbon deposits using rhenium-osmium
isotopes.
Science. 2005 May 27;308(5726):1293-5.
PMID: 15919988 [PubMed]

Suggested protocol for collecting, handling and preparing peat cores and
peat samples for physical, chemical, mineralogical and isotopic analyses.
J Environ Monit. 2004 May;6(5):481-92. Epub 2004 Apr 13.
PMID: 15152318 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Constraints on the use of 137Cs as a time-marker to support CRS and SIT
chronologies.
Environ Pollut. 2004 May;129(1):31-7.
PMID: 14749067 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years.
Science. 2004 Jan 9;303(5655):202-7. PMID: 14716006 [PubMed]

Chemostratigraphic evidence of Deccan volcanism from the marine osmium
isotope record.
Science. 2003 Nov 21;302(5649):1392-5.
PMID: 14631039 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Radiometric dating of sediment cores from a hydrothermal vent zone off Milos
Island in the Aegean Sea.
Sci Total Environ. 2003 May 20;307(1-3):203-14.
PMID: 12711435 [PubMed]

40Ar/(39)Ar dating of the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo, Kenya.
J Hum Evol. 2002 Jan-Feb;42(1-2):185-210.
PMID: 11795974 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Half-life determination of 40K by LSC.
Appl Radiat Isot. 2002 Jan-Feb;56(1-2):153-6.
PMID: 11839009 [PubMed]

Human remains from Valdegoba Cave (Huermeces, Burgos, Spain).
J Hum Evol. 2001 Nov;41(5):385-435.
PMID: 11681860 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A 3.3-Ma impact in argentina and possible consequences
Science. 1998 Dec 11;282(5396):2061-3.
PMID: 9851923 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

The dating of shallow faults in the Earth's crust.
Nature. 2001 Jul 12;412(6843):172-5.
PMID: 11449270 [PubMed]

ESR dating evidence for early modern humans at Border Cave in South Africa.
Nature. 1990 Apr 5;344(6266):537-9.
PMID: 2157165 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I'll be waiting for it.

I'll be expecting you to ignore all of these.

Dude, you've quoted nothing here that indicates that radiometric dating
can be used to date anything less than 10,000 years.







snip

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?

That depends on the type of rock. Sedimentary rocks can't be directly
dated, but igneous rocks often can.

How can you date igneous rocks when they give up contradicting dates?



snip

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.

Wrong again, moron.

Use of the word history for old caves (without any inscription) is
misleading.

No, it's not. Trying to make exceptions because you have been caught being
wrong is misleading.

It is misleading. Because my science teachers have repeatedly said
that science and history are two different things and that history
consists of written documents.



The public is led to believe that there is writing
extending into 10,000 or so years ago when there is not.

There is evidence that extends far beyond 10K years. Writing is not
history.

Writing is an essential part of the historical development.


Evolutionists
know that there is a lot of weasel room in dating methods that don't
rely on written texts,

Written texts are much less reliable than radiometric dating techniques.

Not so. The ancients kept records of stars and their movements and this
can be correlated using computers and known data about the stars. So it
is much more accurate than dating methods, which have been shown to be
inaccurate and contradictory.



and anyone can just make up an age for an
ancient cave just by changing the digits on the numbers more or less.

Wrong again, moron. Dates are based on objective methodology.

Not necessarily. Johansen describes how the dater to his specimen was
talked to and that Johanson was trying to obtain a date.




You are under constraint if you're dating areas that have inscription
and pottery.

Do you really think that "inscriptions" and "pottery" are as reliable as
objective dating?

If an inscription refers to "Pontius Pilate" I would say so.









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.

You haven't demonstrated this. You have not even shown that the estimates
of the age of the earth have changed significantly in the last 30 years.

Did I say I was going to provide a list of dates to show that the age
of the earth has changed significantly in the last 30 years? They have
in the last 100 years.


snipping

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.

Add chemistry to the growing list of things you know nothing about.

So then are you saying that helium isn't slippery?






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.

Even if such tissue existed (and it does not) it wouldn't be a "trouble" for
evolutionary theory.

How can you say that dinosaur soft tissue doesn't exist when it has
been publicized extensively in then news, on television and even in
Discovery magazine just a couple of months ago? What have you been
smoking? They even showed pictures of the blood cells.



Evolution and old age theory is
just a crock as proven by this tissue.

No such "tissue" exists. Get over it.


snip
Which all have been shown to give contradictory dates.

Liar!

No it's not.

Yes, moron, you are caught lying again.


Geologist simply call these aberrations "discordant."

Discordant dates are due to some kind of error, either in collection, or in
processing.

Discordant is a common word used in such studies. So don't call me a
liar.

What else should we call someone who lies?





And even fresh
lava gives vastly old dates.

Liar!

The best you can do?

Notice you haven't supported your claim.

You haven't even read all the evidence and here
you pop-off?

This doesn't support your claim either.

In order to make such a claim you have to have read ever
single study on rocks dated to make that claim.

Notice again, no support for your cliam......






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.

No, moron, it "wood" not.

Yes it would too, Mr Alphibet (sic).



You can even go to a live volcano and collect old dates
there.

Wrong again, moron. "Old dates" can be obtained when one improperly uses
volcanic samples taken from underwater.

Dude theoritically that makes no sense what soever. The lava supposed
shifting under the earth contains a melted potporridge of rock from all
ages (supposedly).


Otherwise lava gives proper dates

DJT

.

Loading