How old is the Earth?!

Blitz,How old do you think the earth is?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[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.

Of course, I admit anybody can be wrong, including me of course.As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years.And me, oldschool? Unfortunately, I'm not very old (~20). Anyway, if you want to look credentials of creationists, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp should have some information too. Includes some people with triple Ph.D's, inventor of MRI, etc.Salty domes? I'm unfamiliar with this. How does this relate to the salt problem (the net influx of salt into oceans?). Please explain this to me.Helium does not escape into the atmosphere. Hydrogen does (which is how oxygen is made in the atmosphere, by UV hitting water vapor and splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen), but helium is a lot heavier than hydrogen. Give me some articles which show that helium escapes into space faster than it enters our atmosphere from interplanetary gas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years.

---

If I'm not mistaken, none of the radiometric dating methods are reliable for such a recent date as 1800 (except c-14, which only works for organics) [QUOTE][/b]Helium does not escape into the atmosphere. Hydrogen does (which is how oxygen is made in the atmosphere, by UV hitting water vapor and splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen), but helium is a lot heavier than hydrogen. Give me some articles which show that helium escapes into space faster than it enters our atmosphere from interplanetary gas.[/B][/QUOTE]from Infidels.orgIs the Earth Young?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
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? At the rate continents drift, a few cm a year, it cant be significant). Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 457 million tonnes of sodium now comes into the sea every year. The minimum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year. (using a submarine groundwater discharge of 0.01-10%). And even then, recent studies show that the rate it enters oceans is even faster: That submarine groundwater discharge (SGWD) is as much as 40% of what rivers discharge. Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 122 million tonnes of sodium leaves the sea every year. The maximum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tonnes/year.
Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years.

---

Ooh...ooh...ooh...[*hand raised straight up, waving excitedly*]I'll take this one... it's one of my favorites.Assuming you are refering to the Austin and Humphries who wrote this... The Sea's Missing Salt...the solution to this problem lies in the comically incorrect assumptions of these supposed Creationist "scientists".If you read all the way to footnote 49, you will see that Austin and Humphries did NOT, in fact, use the maximum possible Na output in their calculation:"A greater value for B4max can be obtained if the very unusual Messinian (Late Miocene) evaporites of the Mediterranean region are assumed to be of marine origin..."Well, only a deluded Creationist would doubt that these evaporites are "of marine origin"."W. T. Hosler et al... estimate the Messinian rock salt mass, which allows the Na+ mass to be estimated at 5.8 x 1017 kg. This mass is about 13% of the world's rock salt No+ and 4% of the Na+ in the present ocean. If the "Messinian salinity crisis" is assumed to have had a duration of one million years, B4max would be 5.8 x 1011 kg/yr, a value slightly greater than all the combined inputs."So A&H use a value for removal by halite deposition that is 14 times lower than this Miocene event. So much for using "maximum outputs" in their calculations.How do they rationalize ignoring these data?"The "Messinian salinity crisis", however, is admitted by many to be a truly extraordinary event. It cannot be used to estimate the long term removal rate of Na+ in halite."A truly extraordinary event?Really?Evaporites of equal or greater size are found throughout the Geologic Column. How can we then justify ignoring them? The Messinian event alone is enough to balance the books for the Cenozoic period.There are similar problems with many of the other outputs and inputs calulated by A&H. Overall, it is mundane example of "garbage in, garbage out"... if you use enough foolish assumptions, your conclusion will be completely incorrect.

blitz77 writes:

---

And me, oldschool? Unfortunately, I'm not very old (~20). Anyway, if you want to look credentials of creationists, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp should have some information too. Includes some people with triple Ph.D's, inventor of MRI, etc.

---

I thought I might try to add some perspective to make clear why you're getting some of the responses you're drawing.The reason for the question about whether you're "oldschool" stems from the arguments you're making. Your particular Creationist arguments were the original ones that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) first made popular beginning back in the 1960s. ICR's arguments have become a bit more sophisticated, but Answers in Genesis (AIG) led by Ken Ham is sticking with the original arguments. The AIG position is that the Bible says it, it's true, and that's the end of it.A more sophisticated generation of Creationists have largely abandoned the following arguments:

• Sun is shrinking
• Moondust isn't deep enough
• Earth should be buried in dust
• Oceans aren't salty enough
• Earth's magnetic field is decreasing too fast
• The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out evolution

The new Creationists are advancing a different set of arguments. For example, just at this site alone, Tranquility Base proposes an earth 14,000 years old where the flood occurred about 7000 years ago. Wmscott proposes an ancient earth where the flood actually happened around 10,000 years ago as a result of catastrophic glacial melting. TrueCreation accepts a lot of modern science but rejects evolution. Fred Williams argues that information theory rules out evolution.I'm sure each Creationist has his own reasons for seeking out different answers, but I think the evolutionists feel that one reason is that the old arguments were focused too much on audiences unfamiliar with science, sort of taking advantage of ignorance in some respects, and that these arguments had little to nothing to recommend them from a scientific perspective. So seeing these old arguments here kind of has an anachronistic feel to it, and might explain the tone of some of the replies.This is not to suggest you should abandon arguing for your point of view, but given the lack of success these arguments have experienced in the past, and given their abandonment by many modern Creationists, it *is* a tough row to hoe.--Percy

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
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?

​

​

---

Blitz, I think you'll have to provide some supporting information to be credible. You seem to be relying on creationist sources for other items in your post so you might also be using the same unreliable sources to have the above statement.

​

Perhaps your statement can be contrasted with examples of successful correlation of radiometric dating results with historical records in the following examples:

​

Historical Volcanic Lavas Dated at Zero from K40/Ar40
Location Year of Eruption

​

Mt. Milhara, Japan 1951
Sakurajima, Japan 1946
Kilauea, Hawaii 1750
Kilauea, Hawaii 1955
Mauna Loa, Hawaii 1907
Mt. Etna, Sicily 252
Mt. Etna, Sicily 1329
Mt. Etna, Sicily 1444
Mt. Etna, Sicily 1536
Mt. Etna, Sicily 1669
Mt. Etna, Sicily 1886
Mt. Vesuvius, Italy 1944
Askja, Iceland ~1500 BCE
Lakagigar, Iceland 1783
Ngauruhoe, New Zealand 1954
Paracutin, Mexico 1944
Augustine, Alaska 1935
Cinder Cone, California 1851

​

All of the above was from Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple, pg. 132 - 134.

​

from http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

​

Makes you wonder why there should be any successful correlations if radiometric dating is so unreliable.

​

So, Blitz, what are some of the examples which disprove the reliability of radiometric dating techniques?

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.

i heard someone say something on this lines before:"if God wanted the earth to look like a billion of years old, then we can't do anything about that."

Hrm, interesting. What would prompt you to conclude that God exists and is a liar?

Blitz77

quote:

---

As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years.

---

A typical creationist deception.What actually happened was that scientists wanted to see if xenoliths - un-melted rocks included with a lava flow - could be radiodated to give the date of the base rock. The lava was radiodated and duly returned a 0 date. Dating the xenoliths returned results that were all over the place. Conclusion: as expected, radiodating xenoliths is unreliable. See here.It has always been accepted that radio-dating is unreliable in certain special circumstances. This was an attempt to check one of these.------------------
For Whigs admit no force but argument.

The resident creationists' other arguments have been successfully dealt with; one gets suspicious when the professional creationists themselves backtrack on such arguments.But the faint young sun is, however, a real one, and mainstream paleoclimatologists have long recognized its reality. Beyond more than a billion years or so ago, the Earth would be too cold to have liquid water -- and a billion years is MUCH greater than 6000 years, meaning no support for YEC.However, they have come up with some plausible solutions that involve changes in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. There are various gases that have infrared absorption bands that can make them act as greenhouse gases; three likely ones for the early Earth are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. So if the Earth had had more CO2 a few billion years ago, it would be warm enough to have liquid water.In fact, there appears to be a "geochemical thermostat". If the Earth becomes too cold, then rocks do not weather as much, and less CO2 becomes consumed by their weathering. Allowing CO2 to accumulate and heat the Earth. And if the Earth becomes too warm, then rocks weather faster, consuming more CO2, and thus cooling the Earth. Here are some links on that question:http://earth.usc.edu/~geol150/variability/co2.html
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~kkeller/lecture3.pdf
http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/...rses/oa413/notes/Lecture14.pdf
http://geowww.gcn.ou.edu/~msoreg/tes/Early%20Atmosphere.htm
Carleton College: File Not Found
http://members.cox.net/jmadams2/Feedbacks.htmlI got these links off off Google by searching for"carbon dioxide" water weathering rocks "faint young sun" temperature

ok, i'm not going to get in to the scientifics of how old the earth is becuase i really dont think it matters much. i realize a lot of christians are young earth. i am a christian i am old earth. yes, i am creationist, but i am old earth. the bible does not say when the earth was created, so, i believe it could have been around a while before the bible was written. here, i'll quote from genesis.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." after these two verses it goes into talking about the creation and the 7 days of creation. but it does not put the earth into these 7 days. so therefore, christian/creationist does not equal new earth. since the bible does nothing to support new earth(or old earth for that matter, old earth just seems to be supported by evidence) there is no reason to believe it was created the same time life was created.

The actual temperature of the Earth's surface has more to do with the output of volcanos, mid-ocean ridges, etc. over long periods of time than the heat of the sun. The geological record has shown that when tectonic activity was low the temperature of the Earth was also low.The reasoning behind this is long and complicated, and I'll post it if anyone really needs to hear it.The Rock Hound

Before yapping on about ignorant views, do your own research to find out what scientist honestly think. You have come up with stupid statements like people once thought the world was flat, but failed to comment that before the advent of christianity, the ancient greeks took it as common knowledge that the world was a sphere. It has been the church that historically prevents the advance of science, or swings it retrograde (e.g. Earth as centre of universe). Listen to others and stop being so opinionated. Where's your reasoning behind "No leading scientist would hold allegance to [the big bang] theory today?" Discuss (don't argue).