james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,803
- 170
You miss my point. My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements? Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old? Such as tree rings? Geological explanations? Other scientific thesis supporting it? I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time. Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?
We had luchitociencia post in #77 some evidence.
I've run out of time so will continue when I can.
I am giving you another link. Science magazine, I think is October 1952, but surely is between years 1952 and 1953.
The petroleum companies wanted to know the age of the hydrocarbons from the Gulf of Mexico.
The assumed age of the hydrocarbons by part of the theory in that time was of millions of years, which they assumed will take for organic matter to be converted into hydrocarbon. As it was found liquid hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of New Mexico, the decision was to check its age.
The results were 11,800 -14,600 years of age (+- 1400 years), with samples extracted from different sites of the Grande Isle core. A composite carbonate sample from the core as well gave 12,300 years of age (+-1200 years), and the nonextractable organic matter , which comprises a major portion of the original organic content, had an average age of 9,200 years (+-100 years).
All the age determination was made by J. Laurence Kulp, from Lamont Geological Observatory of Columbia University.
There is plenty evidence that the story of dinosaurs living millions of years ago is just pure fairy tales. Just "a hypothesis", because evolution can't reach the title of being called "a theory".
What has happened is the evolutionists have gone to other radiometric dating since 1956 and chronological layers of the Earth from the 1850s. I'm assuming they used radiocarbon dating from 1946 to get the ages of hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico. The evos are claiming the newer radiometric dating has made dating more accurate. I don't think this is the case as other evidence does not back it up. Otherwise, simpletons such as Fort Fun Indiana would have the evidence.
In 1907, the Earth was 2.2 B yrs old. I think it goes to show they made assumptions that aren't correct. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Radiometric dating finds Earth is 2.2 billion years old