How old is the Earth?!

But Greg, the *law* of gravity a la Newton was modified/replaced by Einstein's *theory* of relativity. Not even scientific laws are immutable. Another example is that the law of conservation of matter was amended from "matter cannot be destroyed or created" to "matter cannot be destroyed or created but it can be changed into energy and energy can be changed into matter" (more of Einstein's meddling). We have to realize that even the "best" principles of science are not immutable, and even a concept as central to our everyday lives as gravity is not entirely understood. Hence it is not surprising that the current incarnation of the Big Bang Theory is not complete enough to explain every observation. Few theories by themselves are. In fact, NASA recently sunk a couple hundred million dollars into a deep space cosmic microwave background radiation antisoptery(sp?) probe to map irregularities in the CBR and hopefully make some finer adjustments to the BBT. That's the same reason astrophysicists are lining up to go to a place as warm and pleasant as Antarctica to make similar astronomical observations, that the BBT model of the early universe is (like most theories) tentative and incomplete, and the need for further research opens many fascinating opportunities for revision and more questions to be answered. The BB itself is not the only prize in this research, but there are possibly many fundamental questions about the nature of matter itself (string theory; why the universe is biased towards baryonic matter rather than antimatter; high energy unification of the fundamental forces of physics) that may have light shed on them by early-universe observations. In short, incomplete theories lead to discoveries, and sometimes, different theories that are superior to their predecessors.

[QUOTE][b]It would have been even higher in the past.[/QUOTE][/b]Quite the contrary. Reconstructions of tidal resonance based upon the arrangements of continents in the past (from plate tectonics) indicate that the current expansion of the Moon's orbit is anomalously fast.Now, why do you believe it (the rate) would have been higher in the past?I admit that it is refreshing to hear these ancient "evidences" of a young Earth. They were once quite popular but after it got to the point where we could respond to them by just copying and pasting from a generic, one-size-fits-all *.txt file the Creationists were eventually forced onto newer arguments based more on fuzzy definitions and word-plays.As for helium, James Meritt's General Anti-Creationist FAQ claims that atmospheric helium falls precisely into predicted limits based upon an old Earth. He included nine different references. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what led to you to your conclusion, particularly calculations and/or peer-reviewed sources.Added by edit: Dalyrymple has a paper claiming that He concentration is at equilibrium.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-04-2002]

[QUOTE] [b]Reasonable margins of error for uranium dating? There are quite a number of examples that disprove this. I remember one in which a recent volcano's lava (~100 yrs old) was dated by the uranium method to be 500 million years old. Is that a reasonable margin of error? [/QUOTE][/b]Lava contains xenoliths, pieces of older rock that float in the lava and then solidify in it on the surface. This is why it is important to take a number of samples and then run the tests a number of times on each sample. If you have 100 points that say a lava flow is recent, one that says that the flow is 100 million years old, and one that says the flow is 10 billion years old, which data point do you use? The one with a 99 other points verifying it.Unfortunately Creationists don't work the same way. They generally take whichever data point says that the method doesn't work, in this case, 500 MYA. That's the way these YECuments work. Maybe you should tell us specifically which attempt this was so we can go into greater detail? [QUOTE][b]Actually, Snelling and Rush’s research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument[/QUOTE][/b]Very few scientists bother to even be critics of YECism, they just go about their work. There are people that think the world is flat, so why not let the people who say the world is 6k go on unopposed?The data used by evos generally comes from those scientists. [QUOTE][b]Barnes[/QUOTE][/b]Cooked the data. And also cooked his resume. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.htmlMy favorite part is when Barnes just decides that the decay is exponential.On another note, you're very oldschool, aren't you? Barnes was silent for the last 20 years of his life. [QUOTE][b]Salty seas. Salt lifted back out by plate tectonics? Actually, take these measurements of net influx of Na+ ions into the oceans (taking into account upliftings, actually how does plate tectonics influence it?[/QUOTE][/b]Familiar with salt domes? They're rather significant for petroleum interests so you should have. Basically they are salt, formerly from the ocean. [QUOTE][b]from the earth's crust into the atmosphere every second[/QUOTE][/b]How much escapes into space each second? [QUOTE][b]Of course, the earth could have been created with most of the helium already there, so two million years is a maximum age. [/QUOTE][/b]Why, to deliberate deceive?I agree with other evolutionists here. Might as well just post a link to a FAQ and leave if you aren't going to admit you're wrong on at least a few counts.

I couldn't help but notice that you pilched the bit about the Hawaiian lava flow verbatim from: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.htmlSalt domes are relevant because they are salt deposits from evaporated seas following a drop in sealevel. They show that salt is removed from oceans as well as deposited. Salt flats and lakes demonstrate the same.As for your helium question, see Dalyrymple, 1984. It is widely used against the ancient He arguments.As for the Creation "scientist" list, it includes some interesting people, psychologists, engineers, and at least one plastic surgeon. Isn't that a rather odd staff to have around if you are dealing with geology and biology? Could it be that AiG is understaffed in people who are actually trained in relevant fields?Also while we are talking about AiG, read their Statement of Faith, Part F. Please explain how this is science.