How Old is the Earth ?

[QUOTE]Dendrochronology - because the oldest trees found are over 10,000 years old
Evaporites - because it takes millions of years for them to form
Magnetic reversals - because it takes hundreds of thousands of years for each new one to take action and 10,000+ years for polarity to reverse.
[/B][/QUOTE]Lest someone misinterpret your wish as 'truth'....
The oldest trees are not 10,000 years old. I think the oldest is ~4500 years old, the dendrochronologic record uses overlaps between the living trees and fossil trees to extend the record backEvaporites:It doesn't take millions of years for them to form in all cases.Reversals:What do you mean 'to take action'? Reversals of the field are random events, some polarity intervals are of short duration and others last a long time. The interval of time it takes for a reversal is somewhere between 1-10 ka.Now, if you get to examining the reversal record in its full context (ocean floor, ocean sediment and continental record) you will begin to realize the folly of your previous assertions regarding their temporal relationships.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
TC- you want to compress time so that 1000 magnetic reversals have occurres within the past 6000 years. (magnetic reversals, on scientific time, occure roughly every half a million years. Take 500,000,000 million years of history, and you have 1000 reversals. You're gonna need to provide records of these reversals in ancient geneology and even modern records, from the Europeans, for example.

---

JM: A few corrections and clarifications here. Personally, the idea that reversals occur every half a million years makes it sound as though they have some regular periodicity, they do not. For example, the Kiaman Revered interval and the Cretaceous Long Normal interval are both extended time periods when the field was stable. Secondly, TC has a rather myopic view of magnetism that is focused solely on the intensity fluctuations on the ocean floor. He ignores all the physics behind the reversals and the ocean floor structure itself and the corroborating sections on land. It needs to be hammered into his head that if he wants his hypothesis to be taken seriously, he must develop a coherent hypothesis that fits all the observations, but I think his main goal is simply to argue without regard to the details.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
To Joe::
First, in defence of TC (don't hold your breath for this to happen
again) he was NOT putting these forward as OLD EARTH proofs. He
wanted a list of THAT KIND to spark debate with.

​

Perhaps you should read the context of a post before assaulting ?

---

Peter: My reply crossed bounds of two threads. The first part of my response was a correction of some things posted by quicksink, the second part of the post you criticize deals with TC's model of magnetic striping rather than to this particular thread. So, two things, I did read the context of a post and I was assaulting a model presented in another thread. If I am guilty of anything it was not making the distinction in the reply above. For that, I apologize.CheersJoe Meert