Summations Only

I do know what traditional historical Christian theology is, yes, and the traditional historical method of reading the Bible, yes, so if I know what a particular person's theology is, then I know if it is the traditional historical theology or not, yes. If a person is arguing with the traditional historical reading of the Bible it is very possible that person is simply not a Christian. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I actually read hardly any "YEC screed" and my judgment of the relation between the rocks and the eras is my very own. In fact I don't think I've ever heard another creationist say anything about that at all. It's something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. That's possible, but it probably wouldn't change my view to know that process. It's the everpresent connection shown on many charts of the eras as attached to the rocks that I'm judging from, and in many discussions about this others have pretty consistently accepted that connection, only disagreeing with what it means. I don't consider myself to be "doing geology" at all. I'm trying to tackle the theory, the paradigm, the interpretive system, which I don't see as having much to do with the actual work of geology, just something you carry around with you and fit the facts into, which fit much better in another paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me the theory is correct enough, but it is encountering unknowns in the past that lead to error.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Seems to me the theory is correct enough, but it is encountering unknowns in the past that lead to error.

---

Then you would have to accept the current dates as scientifically valid. Science doesn’t and shouldn’t assume the presence of unknown factors that probably don’t exist and that just happen to mean that you are right.

I know they are wrong because of all the other evidence of a young earth.

quote:

---

I know they are wrong because of all the other evidence of a young earth.

---

I didn’t say that you had to believe that they were true, only that they are scientifically valid.And, in fact, since you’ve ruled out changes in decay rate as an explanation for radiometric dates you have to admit that there is very strong evidence against a young Earth there for a start.

There is no evidence for a young earth. None. You have presented none because there is none.ALL the evidence provided by geology, palaeontology, archaeology, radiological dating, dendrology, molecular biology and cosmology - amongst several other disciplines - points to not just an old earth but a VERY old earth. This has been studied extensively, painstakingly and globally for over 200 years by thousands of specialists. It is now a scientific fact that will not change.Had your book of ancient myths never been written this convestation would not be happening. What you mean by all the other evidence is your interpretation of those myths and nothing else.

You keep saying there is evidence for the very old Earth but the only actual evidence I know of is the radiometric dating system.While I've been collecting evidence for the young earth inthe fact that there is no disturbance to the strata until after it's all laid down, showing that it was rapidly deposited and not over millions upon millions of yearsthe greaqt geographic extent of most of the strata which shows thatnothing could have lived during that "time period"and all the rest of it I'm too tired to collect right now

I suppose you must believe that, but given that you've been presented with all thes multiple sources of independent evidence many hundreds of times it's difficult for me to believe that you actually do. The word delusion isn't strong enough for your sort of illness. Well you've got me there - can you explain how strata can be disturbed before it's laid down?Or are you making the silly mistake of saying that there is no disturbance in any individual strata or sets of strata?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

quote:

---

While I've been collecting evidence for the young earth in

​

the fact that there is no disturbance to the strata until after it's all laid down, showing that it was rapidly deposited and not over millions upon millions of years

​

the greaqt geographic extent of most of the strata which shows thatnothing could have lived during that "time period"

---

Where by collecting you mean making up.The actual geological evidence clearly indicates that tectonic disturbances have continued throughout the lifetime of the planet. You, on the other hand have only lookevad one relativelynstsnle area and even there the evidence was against you.And how could you possibly conclude that the extent of a stratum - or rather a formation which is usually a much more complex beast - would mean that nothing could live there. The Sahara is pretty big, things still live there.

Just describe one please.

The geological record is a testament to long ages. The evidence clearly shows multiple tectonic events, widely separated in time, as well as long periods of non-deposition where considerable erosion occurred. Of course, different localities will show different events but it really is clear.(And there are other things such as the time time required for lithification or the time required for magmatic intrusions to cool)

It perpetual groundhog day here at EVC; like you just arrived today and haven't heard every one of these facts hundreds, if not thousands, of times.The evidential facts hit your wall of disbelief and bounce right off leaving you totally imune to them, so regardless of the evidence you immediately reject, then forget it.Let's ignore all the other evidence from all the other sciences for the moment and just take the direct evidence of radiometric dating. Note that I say 'direct'. It doesn't depend on any 'historic' science, it's experimental and confirmable today.Historically you've run away from this quite obviously because you know it's compelling on its own. But maybe now's the time you put your self-assessed critical thinking skills to the test.

quote:

---

The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.

​

Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.]

​

These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited.

​

In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.

​

The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor.

​

Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago.

​

The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs.

​

These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).

​

For additional information on this subject, see G. Brent Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth, published by the Stanford University Press (Stanford, Calif.) in 1991 (492 p.).

---

No, you avoid evidence like vampires avoid garlic.You "know" they are wrong because your religious belief is a filter--any shred of "evidence" supporting your beliefs is accepted uncritically, while any evidence disproving your beliefs is ignored, obfuscated, or misrepresented.You are doing the exact opposite of science--religious apologetics.

Yet Traditional Christianity realized over two hundred years ago that the Earth was not young, that evolution happened, that humans are simply one species of primate, that the Biblical Flood never happened and that the Bible is a creation of man.Traditional Christianity moved on as more was learned and it was only the Christian Cult of Ignorance that remained behind.