Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
70 online now:
(70 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,163 Year: 4,275/6,534 Month: 489/900 Week: 13/182 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
wj
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 145 (4992)
02-18-2002 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 6:15 PM


TC, you are merely diverting attention from the question to which we are awaiting an answer with bated breath. What is the evidence to support the assertion that the earth, at least, is no more than 10,000 years old?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 6:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:02 PM wj has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 145 (4993)
02-18-2002 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 6:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Now, I am going to ask you again, do you have some substantive information on radiometric dating?"
--Not currently, I am not arguing with radioisotopic methods right now.


That's exactly what you were doing.

So, to repeat the original question, what positive evidence do you have of a 6,000 year old earth?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 6:54 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:05 PM mark24 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 145 (4995)
02-18-2002 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by wj
02-18-2002 6:58 PM


"TC, you are merely diverting attention from the question to which we are awaiting an answer with bated breath. What is the evidence to support the assertion that the earth, at least, is no more than 10,000 years old?"
--Evidence, would be the ability for such an age to cope with the assertion that it takes your time-scale to create somthing by which you will date. So what are these examples?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by wj, posted 02-18-2002 6:58 PM wj has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 145 (4996)
02-18-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mark24
02-18-2002 6:59 PM


"That's exactly what you were doing.

So, to repeat the original question, what positive evidence do you have of a 6,000 year old earth?"
--lbhandli accused me as being ignorant from me haveing 'limited knowledge' on the issue. The question that I asked that he accounted ignorance on my part, is, are there any other dating techniques not associated with radiometric dating that gives you 4.5 billion years as your date for the age of the earth.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 6:59 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 7:09 PM TrueCreation has taken no action
 Message 83 by Pete, posted 02-19-2002 6:52 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 145 (4998)
02-18-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 6:54 PM


The POINT was that you would know this answer if you had any knowledge of the field.

Now, if you are in a thread entitled the age of the Earth and you want to discuss it and you are wondering how we come to the age of the Earth, what are you doing then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 6:54 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:14 PM lbhandli has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 145 (4999)
02-18-2002 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 7:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"That's exactly what you were doing.

So, to repeat the original question, what positive evidence do you have of a 6,000 year old earth?"
--lbhandli accused me as being ignorant from me haveing 'limited knowledge' on the issue. The question that I asked that he accounted ignorance on my part, is, are there any other dating techniques not associated with radiometric dating that gives you 4.5 billion years as your date for the age of the earth.


And the question being asked of you is if there is any positive evidence of a 6,000 year old earth? Rather than knocking a well supported, highly corroborated method.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:05 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 145 (5002)
02-18-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 7:06 PM


"The POINT was that you would know this answer if you had any knowledge of the field."
--So there arent any? I would not think there would be any, I was making sure that I wouldn't make any comments in such a topic that would regard this question. It isn't ignorant, its eager to know.

"Now, if you are in a thread entitled the age of the Earth and you want to discuss it and you are wondering how we come to the age of the Earth, what are you doing then?"
--My question was are there any sort of dating techniques that will also give you an age of the earth's 'existance', not that it is more than 6000 years old. Different questions.

-------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 7:06 PM lbhandli has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by edge, posted 02-18-2002 7:36 PM TrueCreation has taken no action
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 7:38 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 145 (5007)
02-18-2002 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 7:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--My question was are there any sort of dating techniques that will also give you an age of the earth's 'existance', not that it is more than 6000 years old. Different questions.

I'm not sure why you are asking this question unless it's the old creationist argument that since it cannot be verified by another method we cannot really trust a radiometric date for the age of the earth. The point is that it IS verified by several independent radiometric methods. This would be impossible if the world according to creationists were true.

Really, if you want to pursue the argument, I suggest that you think really hard about what methods verify your own concept of the age of the earth. How old does moon dust accumulation suggest the earth is? How about helium escape? Why do you think that these methods seldom result in actual numbers in the creationist press? Do you really think that they agree with one another? I think you will quickly see that this line of questioning does you little good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:14 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 69 of 145 (5008)
02-18-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 7:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--My question was are there any sort of dating techniques that will also give you an age of the earth's 'existance', not that it is more than 6000 years old. Different questions.


But the question, once again, asked of you, is....... is there positive evidence of a 6,000 year old earth, in the same way that there is evidence (highly corroborated) of a much older earth?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:14 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 145 (5025)
02-18-2002 10:44 PM


Just to enter a notion into the discussion, how about the salinity of the sea argument?

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:49 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action
 Message 74 by wj, posted 02-18-2002 11:07 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
bkwusa
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 145 (5026)
02-18-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
02-15-2002 9:14 AM


ummm all geolgy sayes is that earth was molten about 4.6 billion years ago and then it cooled off.... as much as we know earth could have been molten entierly severla time and could be who knows how old

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 02-15-2002 9:14 AM Peter has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:50 PM bkwusa has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 145 (5028)
02-18-2002 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Cobra_snake
02-18-2002 10:44 PM


Instead of a notion, how about an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-18-2002 10:44 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 145 (5029)
02-18-2002 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 10:47 PM


This ignores that there is a lack of evidence that the Earth was molten several times. A lot of things could be, however, this doesn't address the evidence for what is. Meteories also happen to fit the evidence of the age of the solar system that is entirely consistent with the age of the Earth from rock formations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 10:47 PM bkwusa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:09 PM lbhandli has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 145 (5033)
02-18-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Cobra_snake
02-18-2002 10:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Just to enter a notion into the discussion, how about the salinity of the sea argument?

Yes, a notion, and a very wrong one at that. Are you going to present data on the rates of input of (presumably) sodium into the oceans, its current concentration and the rates of output by various mechanisms? Don't forget albitization, whcih removes significant amount of sodium, thus resulting in a system which is near equilibrium. How do you calculate the age of a system in equilibrium?

Or are you going to select another mineral? Morris (Scientific creationism, 1974, p154) presented a whole range of ages for the average time metals remain in oceans. Will you pick nickel, as he did, with a retention period of 18,000 years. Why not magnesium with a retention period of 45 M years?

Just a notion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-18-2002 10:44 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
bkwusa
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 145 (5034)
02-18-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 10:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
This ignores that there is a lack of evidence that the Earth was molten several times. A lot of things could be, however, this doesn't address the evidence for what is. Meteories also happen to fit the evidence of the age of the solar system that is entirely consistent with the age of the Earth from rock formations.

actully i have my own theory on that... my theory is that earth was a comment that was caught in the sun's atmosphere...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:50 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 11:16 PM bkwusa has taken no action
 Message 77 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2002 12:02 AM bkwusa has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022