Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3850 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 32 of 145 (4751)
02-16-2002 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 12:18 PM


[QUOTE][b]--Is there really anything else besides radiometric techniques that will give these ages?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
You can use cosmic ray track counts in thin slices of lunar material and meteorites to estimate how long the specimen has been exposed to the space environment. But of course, these are exposure ages, not absolute ages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:18 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3850 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 145 (4794)
02-16-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Kyle467
02-16-2002 7:21 PM


[QUOTE][b]I heard that radioactive dating relies on too many assumptions. One assumption was about the amount of carbon or other material that was originally present in the material dated. On the same note, the amount of the daughter material is also assumed. Examples of incorrect radioactive dates were given through the dating of materials whose dates were previously known. For example, a 200-year-old lava flow was dated to be around 3 billion years old.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Can't use carbon dating on a lava flow. Carbon has to be fixed from the air by living things for that method to work, so you can only use carbon dating on something that was once alive and is still organic in composition.
[QUOTE]originally by no2creation[b]One small note. If God did actually create a mature world, a world 4.5billion years old. Then there would be no argument of a old/young earth.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
If God created an apparently mature world, then all of "Scientific Creationism" is invalidated, because then all evidence would necessarily indicate an old Earth. Hence, CvsE would be moot.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Kyle467, posted 02-16-2002 7:21 PM Kyle467 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 10:02 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024