How Old is the Earth ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
A new topic (Coffee House: How Old Is The Earth?!) is duplicating this topic, therefore:

​

YES INDEED, IT'S ANOTHER BUMP IT TO THE TOP!

​

Moose

​

---

Apologies for starting up a duplicate topic. I've only just joined the forum in the last couple of days, and hadn't found my way around when I posted it. I'll be more careful when posting topics in the future...

"Apologies for starting up a duplicate topic. I've only just joined the forum in the last couple of days, and hadn't found my way around when I posted it. I'll be more careful when posting topics in the future..."
--No problem Greg, and welcome to the forum, I am sure your presents here will be most valuable for a source of discussion and information. Cheers to you. I tend to stick around in the Great debate section for the high majority of my posts, I rarely enter other forums (coffee house, Topical discussion, etc). Usually because moderation is at a minimum, and discussion tends to go in too many directions with a less formal style.------------------

"Message 83 ... posted as Pete ... but it was me"
--It would be much easier to comment if perhaps you would give more of a 'list' type of consideration, with a breif sentance such as: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.--Something along these lines would be much appreciated.------------------

[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

"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 back"
--Yes it was a quick example of the format of what I would hope it to be for a more 'to the point' discussion. I appreciate your clarity, though I wouldn't have thought that anyone would have taken my assertions at such a magnitude of seriousness. I am also quite glad that there is such a technique for such extensions."Evaporites:It doesn't take millions of years for them to form in all cases."
--Yes, it is a matter of rate of evaporation or other environmental conditions."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."
--Yes, once again, it was given in the context of an example, thanks for the clarity."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."
--I would highly doubt this, as if it is, than the old earth prospect is in itself most likely flawed, as mine is basically a relative 'compression' of your time scale.------------------

quote:

---

"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."
--I would highly doubt this, as if it is, than the old earth prospect is in itself most likely flawed, as mine is basically a relative 'compression' of your time scale.

---

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.

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 Joe Meert:
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.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

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 ?To TC::
One or two of the links I posted ARE lists of evidences.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
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.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Fair enough.