toldailytopic: How old is the earth?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 9th, 2010 09:38 AM


toldailytopic: How old is the earth?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Knight said:
And why do you believe what you believe?
Click to expand...

Simple. The moon is receding from the Earth at a known rate. A billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tides would have been 12km high. :chuckle:

Any surfers out there? :surf:

The math and full explanation are here.
 
P

Persephone66

BANNED
Banned
Knight said:
And why do you believe what you believe?
Click to expand...

It's the determined age that has been arrived at by using radiometric dating. And while research is being done to improve the results, the ages of the materials tested still remain about the same, 4.54 billion years. This is something that has been repeatedly tested for the past 50 years.
 
Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Persephone66 said:
It's the determined age that has been arrived at by using radiometric dating. And while research is being done to improve the results, the ages of the materials tested still remain about the same, 4.54 billion years. This is something that has been repeatedly tested for the past 50 years.
Click to expand...
Yet radiometric dating is based on a set of assumptions....

Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.​

AIG
 
Nick M

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Oh no... it's Sozo said:
I believe the Bible, which was inspired by God, and contains the genealogical records of the history of man, who was created on the sixth day.
Click to expand...

God said so, and so did Jesus.

I have seen some say 6000-10,000 years, because of ancient Hebrew records. And they say it could be 10,000, but not more.
 
Last edited:
Selaphiel

Selaphiel

Well-known member
4.5 billion years old as is demonstrated by dating of igneous rock using a variety of different radiometric dating methods.
This happens to correlate very well with the age of the sun as it is measured using helioseismology which is a completely different method.
They also recently dated the universe to roughly 13.75 billion years using light.

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2010/20100301.htm

Knight said:
Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science
Click to expand...

Why is that? Igneous rock is produced today as well. We know that when such rocks form there will for an example be potassium-40 in the rock (radioactive isotope which decays to argon-40) but no argon, this means that the clock is zeroed when the rock is formed. This has nothing to do with historical science, it is an observable fact of geology. When we know the clock was zeroed, we can measure the ratio between potassium-40 and argon-40 and determine the age of the rock since we also know that potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.26 billion years. We know half-life rates are constant, it can be demonstrated using isotopes with short half-life periods.
Other factors that could affect the sample are accounted for, the object would be impure if it was not. What do you suggest could affect this ratio within crystallized rock? How do you explain the correlation between the different radiometric methods within the one and the same rock when these methods have quite different half-lives?
And this can be verified by using other radioactive isotopes present as well such as uranium/lead clocks.

Simple. The moon is receding from the Earth at a known rate. A billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tides would have been 12km high.

Any surfers out there?
Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
 
P

Persephone66

BANNED
Banned
Knight said:
Yet radiometric dating is based on a set of assumptions....

Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.​

AIG
Click to expand...

You might want to go with a better source than AIG. AIG assumes the Bible is accurate.

To increase precision, multiple samples of different minerals are measured from different locations on the same rock body. This greatly reduces the problems that arise from what has been mentioned above.
 
Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Persephone66 said:
You might want to go with a better source than AIG. AIG assumes the Bible is accurate.
Click to expand...
And you assume it isn't, so what?

Who is more trustworthy??? A group of scientists or a guy who dresses in women's clothing and has sex with other men? :idunno:
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I don't know. I do know that to God a day as is a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day.
I don't doubt He could create in six days; on the other hand, I don't know how long his creation days were in human understanding.
 
O

Oh no... it's Sozo

New member
annabenedetti said:
I don't know. I do know that to God a day as is a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day.
I don't doubt He could create in six days; on the other hand, I don't know how long his creation days were in human understanding.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that when God created Adam that the sixth day was a 1000 years long?

Would you like to explain how Adam died before the seventh day?
 
P

Persephone66

BANNED
Banned
Knight said:
And you assume it isn't, so what?
Click to expand...
Actually I don't assume its wrong, the fact that things in it flatly contradict science and reality shows be it could be very wrong about at least a few things.
Who is more trustworthy??? A group of scientists or a guy who dresses in women's clothing and has sex with other men? :idunno:
Click to expand...

For the record, I only have sex with someone that I am in a committed relationship with. What that, the clothes I wear or that I am currently drinking a Coke Zero has to do with how trustworthy I am is beyond me. Care to explain? With remarks like that I'm getting the impression that this argument might just be going well over your head.

Would I be more trustworthy if I studied science at Cambridge University?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top