How old is the earth?

Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.

quote:

---

Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans

---

No, they do not. At all. This is simply false.

quote:

---

deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion,

---

Also wrong. Maybe over a hundred years ago they may have tried this to estimate ages (I don't know), but these rates are not constant enough to get accurate measurements - fortunately there are better methods available today such as:

quote:

---

disintegration of radioactive materials,

---

yes, the only valid method of dating. Oh, and the use if index fossils, which have been calibrated through radiometric dating.

quote:

---

Libby's Carbon 14 experiment.

---

C14 has to short a half life to be useful to geologists and paleotologists.Okay, your first paragraph is almost completely wrong. Does anyone really need to read further? Sadly, I think I will.

quote:

---

The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour.

---

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

quote:

---

This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago!

---

Oh, I see. You are claiming the sun is shrinking. Please 1) indicate a scientific reference that the sun is shrinking, including the rate, and 2) a reference that the sun has always been shrinking at this same rate. Here is a reference that will help you.

quote:

---

This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick.

---

Here is some more accurate information on this.

quote:

---

Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.

---

Here is some actual scientific information on this. By the way, I used to work in this field - I can personally attest that the calculations do work out, as do the calculations giving the correct ratios of the different isotopes of helium.

quote:

---

The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years.

---

Here is some information in this. In addition, the dynamo of the earth's core has been modelled, and the model even produced a magnetic reversal effect.

quote:

---

You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists."

---

Do you notice that all the information I provided has come from one source, one big list? What you have provided are called PRATTS - "points refuted a thousand times". Scientists have dealt with these issues. These particular issues are not a problem. It is the creationist "literature" that has ignored actual science.Do you really think that we are all ignorant of basic science? Do you really think that we are all unaware of these arguments? I personally read AnswersInGenesis every day. The science in these sites are just plain wrong. I suspect that much of it is deliberate lying on the part of the big name creationists - certainly it is at least deliberate ignorance on their part, which is just as bad. If you want to learn about science, discuss these issues, then by all means, let's rap. But you are not going to impress anyone here by swaggering in here with a lot of garbage and acting like everyone here must be an idiot if they don't recognize how smart you are.

Hi David,Have you any intention of addressing the repsonses you have had to many of the threads you started the other day?Brian.

David, when you first arrived I allowed for your newness here and made some suggestions.Could you explain why you choose to ignore them?As you may not from the responses to this post you are not doing you or, more importantly, your "cause" any favours by continueing with your current approach.I love this new acronym "PRATT"s. I should warn you that there are a lot more of them out there. You seem to have a knack for finding the most egregious of them (e.g., moon dust and salt content). If you expect to be taken seriously it is probably time for you to do a little research before you post.I will also strongly suggest that you start to demonstart some good faith by answering some of the rebuttals you have been given before opening up more new threads.

Chiroptea has adequately answered the points raised in the OP. I surmise that you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand his answer, because ...David, it's customary, and often legally required, to acknowledge someone else's work when you copy a large chunk of it or your entire work is a copy of someone else's.In this case, the material you copied is copyrighted (1997), and your action is plagiarism. Not a very Christian thing to do.See Evolution: Fact or Fiction? (about 3/4 of the way down, heading "HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?").If you must steal, steal from someone compentent who has some knowledge whereof they speak. Copying the lies of ignorant fools (I'm usually more polite, but there's no term for Pastor Melton's writing that's politer yet still accurate) makes you look worse than an ignorant fool.

They did. Dalrymple ("The Age of the Earth", Stanford University Press, 1991) has an interesting "Table 1: Some Early (Pre-1950) Estimates of the Age of the Earth". He lists 13 studies, from 1899 to 1943, under "Ocean Chemistry" and 32 studies, from 1879 to 1917, under "Erosion and Sedimentation".Of course, those studias are all a tad dated.

Thanks, JonF. In the absence of any other method (like radiometric dating), it does seem to be reasonable to attempt to estimate ages by using sedimentation rates and such.By the way, I think I'm on to something here. I can just make wild assertians, and let other people look them up for me! (wink)

yes, I did take it from that Book, but it is only plagerism if it is compyrighted. It was Copyrighted 1997. Also, admin, you told me not to post so many posts at a time, and im not. Also, this forum is very biast and rude. In fact I havent even seen one Creationist here, all of you are evolutionists who argue with each other. Dont expect any more posts from me, but for those of you who do put up intelligent debates such as Nosy Ned and Chiroptera, thank you.

(Hey, Nosy, should we take this as evidence that there are no creationists at EvC? )There's a bunch of them currently active across the different threads. That none of them leapt to your rescue is indicative that your arguments are a little stale.

So you plagarized.------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Your information is out of date. In most countries including the U.S. all copyright applies to all work from the moment it is first written.Also it is extremely rude not to credit your sources even if you have been granted permission to use their work.

Your view of plagiarism is incorrect.Academically speaking, you would be found guilty of plagiarism even if the material was not copyrighted. If you copied another students essays for example, your tutor would say that you plagiarised. It does not have to be copyrighted. You can even be guilty of plagiarising an idea that someone had before you. Spoken like a true Hovindite. Once your childish arguments have been ripped to shreds, you bail out LOL. You aren't Dr. Bob are you? WOW, this guy is even more deluded than I thought Brian.

Now, I'm sitting here not sure EXACTLY what this is refering too. But if I was a little sensitive I might get just a wee bit upset. But if I was that thin-skinned I might be taken as one of the creationists that we don't have here. Why is it that there is such a preponderance of thin skin on that side? Would any of our not so thin skinned creationists try to answer that?One possibility is that there are a larger number of them that are very young. But then we have Messenjah who manages darn well even though young.I'm inclined to conclude it is as suggested above, it is a ploy for running away without admitting they got into water deeper than they can swim in. Is there need for a "for newbies" thread that offers advice? There could be on for the science side and one for the creationist side. (and yes I think the science side needs some advice too).