Evolution and The Age Of The Earth

[Hollie]

Sure can. But first, shouldn't you scour the Disco'tute, the ICR and Creation.com for the source of your 2000 Amino acids meme? And remember to keep your super-magical biology terms consistent.

So, given all the thousands of gawds invented by man, what are the odds that your man-made gawds are any different from any of those other man-made gawds?

What separates your gawds from Odin, Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra?

Hmmm nothing that looks like an answer there either.

That's what I expected.

Here's another chance. So, given all the thousands of gawds invented by man, what are the odds that your man-made gawds are any different from any of those other man-made gawds?

What separates your gawds from Odin, Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra?

You're avoiding answer the question. Why?

Your tactic is cowardly and naive.

You're still not answering, where's your explanation on how cells "evolved"

I'm trying to help you by showing you the mathematical impossibility of your theory

You can take a grade school course in biology to learn the basics of cell biology.

Here's another chance. So, given all the thousands of gawds invented by man, what are the odds that your man-made gawds are any different from any of those other man-made gawds?

What separates your gawds from Odin, Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmmm nothing that looks like an answer there either.

That's what I expected.

Here's another chance. So, given all the thousands of gawds invented by man, what are the odds that your man-made gawds are any different from any of those other man-made gawds?

What separates your gawds from Odin, Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra?

You're avoiding answer the question. Why?

Your tactic is cowardly and naive.

You're still not answering, where's your explanation on how cells "evolved"

I'm trying to help you by showing you the mathematical impossibility of your theory

You can take a grade school course in biology to learn the basics of cell biology.

Here's another chance. So, given all the thousands of gawds invented by man, what are the odds that your man-made gawds are any different from any of those other man-made gawds?

What separates your gawds from Odin, Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra?

So, you have no answer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmmm nothing that looks like an answer there either.

That's what I expected.

Here's another chance. So, given all the thousands of gawds invented by man, what are the odds that your man-made gawds are any different from any of those other man-made gawds?

What separates your gawds from Odin, Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra?

You're avoiding answer the question. Why?

Your tactic is cowardly and naive.

You're still not answering, where's your explanation on how cells "evolved"

I'm trying to help you by showing you the mathematical impossibility of your theory

You can take a grade school course in biology to learn the basics of cell biology.

Here's another chance. So, given all the thousands of gawds invented by man, what are the odds that your man-made gawds are any different from any of those other man-made gawds?

What separates your gawds from Odin, Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra?

You're the one who accepted everything you were told about "Evolution" without any question, just took it all on faith -- and you're asking me about my "gawds"?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Thank God ( ) for the H1-B Visa, which allows American companies to bring in people from parts of the world where creationism is not considered an equal of evolution or physics, so that the U.S. can maintain its science and tech superiority.

That is actually a rather sad development.

It's an extremely sad development.

 

[orogenicman]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

And then there is the fossil record. If there is a datable layer, virtually any igneous rock, we can tell when the organism lived. And that fossil record very definately records the evolution of life on earth.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

All very well established. The only people who don't accept this are those who feel their own beliefs are threatened by it. You are not going to convince them.

 

[orogenicman]

And then there is the fossil record. If there is a datable layer, virtually any igneous rock, we can tell when the organism lived. And that fossil record very definately records the evolution of life on earth.

Yes, but the question was about the age of the Earth.

 

[orogenicman]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

All very well established. The only people who don't accept this are those who feel their own beliefs are threatened by it. You are not going to convince them.

No I am not. But that doesn't mean that I am going to sit around and not present the scientific evidence that supports the age of the Earth.

 

[Ringel05]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

 

[orogenicman]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

 

[Ringel05]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.
What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.
I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition. As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

 

[orogenicman]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

 

[Ringel05]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

 

[orogenicman]

Let's go back to the evidence for the age of the Earth, shall we? There are many ways that the age of the Earth has been determined, historically. For centuries, scholars have tried to determine the age of the Earth. But the solution ultimately depended on geological observation and careful laboratory work.

In 1660, Steno formulated the only physical law that can be credited to geologic study - the law of superposition. The law states that any horizontally lying, undisturbed formation of sediments will have the oldest sediments at the bottom and the youngest at the top.

In the 18th century, Hutton came up with the idea of cyclic deposition and uplift, from which came the concept of uniformitarianism, which, simply put, means that the processes at work in the present were also at work in the past. What that means is that we can look at how sediments are laid down today and compare them with sediments laid down in the remote past, and correlate their depositional environments.

Using Steno's law, And Hutton's uniformitarianism, geologists were able to develop geologic columns for many rock outcrops, and correlate them into a larger regional stratigraphic column, and eventually conduct these correlations on a worldwide basis. From this work, they were able to produce data that gave relative geologic ages for any rock type. Now, relative ages don't tell us how old the Earth is, but they give us a vital starting point, and definitely show that the Earth is very old.

Enter the atomic age. When radioactivity was discovered and studied, it was determined that all elements on the periodic table have 'daughter" elements, known as isotopes. These isotopes were shown to be unstable, that is, they decay. What's more, they were shown to decay at constant rates that were dependent on the type of isotopes being studied. What was useful in talking about decay rates is determining their half-life, that is, how long it takes for half of the isotope to decay to another product. Below is a table of various important isotopes, the type of decay, and their half-lifes:

Carbon, the first on the list, was found to be a very good indicator of the age of sediments containing carbon that were laid down within the past 50,000 years. And so the Earth cannot be younger than these sediments. Strontium-rubidium curve is useful for determining the age of rocks and minerals and meteorites since 87Rb decays into the ground state of 87Sr with a half-life of 4.7 x 10^10 years. Using this method, scientists were able to determine the age of five chondritic meteorites; and they were determined to be 4.54 billion years old. And since it can be shown that these meteorites were not altered since they were first formed, they are believed to have formed at the time of the formation of the solar system, and so likely at the same time that the Earth formed.

And so bracketing the age of the Earth, it is important that we narrow down the possibilities. One way of doing that is to analyze unaltered Moon rocks. Apollo gave us that opportunity, and from those analyses, we find that the oldest Moon rock is at least 4.5 billion years. More over, we determined that the Moon is compositionally nearly identical to the Earth, and therefore, formed roughly at the same time as the Earth.

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

 

[westwall]

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

Actually, you haven't. You have presented no links to studies in this thread. I just checked.

 

[Ringel05]

Here's the problem with radiometric dating , it is based on three unprovable assumptions;
Conditions at Time Zero
No Contamination
Constant Decay Rate
All of these present potential problems.
I'm not saying radiometric dating processes are invalid, but as every scientist should question any and all potential problems with any scientific system that need to be more fully explored to separate the empirical from the postulate.

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

I read them, primarily postulations and theories.

 

[orogenicman]

Of course, you would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues. Except, in fact, they were the ones who first thought of them, and solved those issues long ago. So the problems you think exists with these methods - aren't an issue. You don't really think that the hundreds of laboratories all across this fine planet that use these methods would be using them if they didn't work, do you?

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

I read them, primarily postulations and theories.

So is the theory of gravity. Dismiss it at your own peril.

 

[Ringel05]

Solved? You mean geologists have developed time machines to go back and take samples for comprehensive analysis??!! Wow, didn't know that.

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

What about the mechanisms that can alter parent to daughter relationships? Fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. The fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. All that's been worked out eh? If so I haven't seen it.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I would have people believe that the scientists who have been using the methods for many decades have never once thought of these issues??!! I said this... where? In fact I simply said we need to do more work in this field and separate out the empirical from the supposition.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

As a scientist you address the question and the problems surrounding the question, the processes and the problems inherent with the processes.
Basically you decided a personal dismissal was preferable to actually answering the question, shoulda known, you are involve with the "discussion".........

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

I read them, primarily postulations and theories.

So is the theory of gravity. Dismiss it at your own peril.

Now you're beginning to understand though radiometric dating is not gravity and if you were truly up on your sciences you would know the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is used most often to explain gravity, not Newton.
You are one defensive prick, yup, I have been kicking one of you sacred cows, too bad you can't separate science from your worship of it.

 

[orogenicman]

Of course you didn't know. You're not a geologist, and have no training in it. I am a geologist, and so I have first hand knowledge of it. The rocks themselves are time machines.

Yes all that has been worked out. Samples aren't pure uranium. The samples are minerals that contain tiny amounts of uranium in their crystalline lattice. Uranium locked up in the mineral lattice is not soluble in water. It is extracted in the laboratory, and then its isotopic composition determined.

I made that assumption because it is clear that you don't know what us scientists have done and what we haven't done. So I assumed that you were attempting to tell us something that you believed we didn't know, but actually do. But for you to now suggest that the empirical work on radioisotope analysis hasn't already been done in massive volumes is to demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the science.

When it is clear that you don't know (or want to know) anything about radioisotope dating techniques, my dismissal of your silly claims is all they merit.

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

I read them, primarily postulations and theories.

So is the theory of gravity. Dismiss it at your own peril.

Now you're beginning to understand though radiometric dating is not gravity and if you were truly up on your sciences you would know the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is used most often to explain gravity, not Newton.
You are one defensive prick, yup, I have been kicking one of you sacred cows, too bad you can't separate science from your worship of it.

Radioactive decay is a well understood physical phenomenon. Ignore it at your own peril. By the way, Einstein didn't replace Newton. He elaborated on Newton. Newton's findings wrt gravity are still valid and still very much in use today. The only thing you've been kicking is your own credibility.