Evolution and The Age Of The Earth

[Old Rocks]

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Orogenicman, is that offer open to all comers? Don't doubt the the present dating systems, but, as an older student of geology, will take any free instruction in any aspect of the discipline I can get, LOL. The only crinoids I have ever collected was from Jim Bridger canyon in Montana. I used to check over a small limestone unit near John Day, Oregon, that a couple of young geologists stated had some messed up crinoids in it, but I never could find them.

I don't think that most people are aware of the number of radio isotopes that we now use, nor the depth of time that they are capable of resolving.

 

[orogenicman]

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Orogenicman, is that offer open to all comers? Don't doubt the the present dating systems, but, as an older student of geology, will take any free instruction in any aspect of the discipline I can get, LOL. The only crinoids I have ever collected was from Jim Bridger canyon in Montana. I used to check over a small limestone unit near John Day, Oregon, that a couple of young geologists stated had some messed up crinoids in it, but I never could find them.

I don't think that most people are aware of the number of radio isotopes that we now use, nor the depth of time that they are capable of resolving.

I am willing to entertain anyone who wants to learn about geology. I presently live in Georgia, and where I live, it is all weathered granite and schist with lots of Georgia clay soil (saprolite). All on the order of a billion years old. No fossils here, I'm afraid. But where I am from, Louisville, Kentucky, that place is a fossil heaven, with every outcrop loaded with them. And they range from upper Ordovician to Lower/middle Mississippian in age. Quite an age range, and lots of diversity. I can arrange a field trip there, but for me, it is an 8 hour drive just to get there (and another 8 hour drive back). So any trip would have to be planned well in advance so I can set aside time and expenses for the trip.

 

[orogenicman]

I get questions related to this all the time, so here is an explanation:

New origin theory for cells that gave rise to vertebrates

New origin theory for cells that gave rise to vertebrates -- ScienceDaily

Date:
April 30, 2015
Source:
Northwestern University
Summary:
Zebras' vivid pigmentation and the fight or flight instinct. These and other features of the world's vertebrates stem from neural crest cells, but little is known about their origin. Scientists propose a new model for how neural crest cells, and thus vertebrates, arose more than 500 million years ago. They report that these cells retain the molecular underpinnings that control pluripotency -- the ability to give rise to all the cell types that make up the body.

The vivid pigmentation of zebras, the massive jaws of sharks, the fight or flight instinct and the diverse beaks of Darwin's finches. These and other remarkable features of the world's vertebrates stem from a small group of powerful cells, called neural crest cells, but little is known about their origin.

Now Northwestern University scientists propose a new model for how neural crest cells, and thus vertebrates, arose more than 500 million years ago.

The researchers report that, unlike other early embryonic cells that have their potential progressively restricted as an embryo develops, neural crest cells retain the molecular underpinnings that control pluripotency -- the ability to give rise to all the cell types that make up the body.

"This study provides deep new insights into the evolutionary origins of humans and other vertebrates," said evolutionary molecular biologist Carole LaBonne, who led the research. "It also provides critical new information about the molecular circuitry of stem cells, including cancer stem cells."

Regenerative medicine scientists now have an updated framework for future studies aiming to harness the power of stem cells to treat human diseases and congenital defects, LaBonne said.

The study also turns conventional thought on its head. Previously, scientists thought neural crest cells had to evolve to gain their incredible properties, but the Northwestern work shows the power was there all along. Researchers now can focus on the molecular mechanisms by which neural crest cells escaped having their potential restricted.

In a study using embryos from the frog Xenopus, a powerful model system used in studies of development, LaBonne and her team found that neural crest cells and the early pluripotent cells present in blastula embryos have surprising similarities, including shared expression of a key set of genes which work together to endow the cells with their unique properties.

The findings will be published as a Science Express article by the journal Science. The article also will be the cover story of the journal's June 19 issue.

"Neural crest cells never had their potential restricted at all," LaBonne said. "We believe a small population of early stem cells were set aside, so that when the time came, their immense developmental potential could be unleashed to create new features characteristic of vertebrates."

LaBonne is a professor of molecular biosciences in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. She holds the Arthur Andersen Teaching and Research Chair and is co-leader of the Tumor Invasion and Metastasis program of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University.

Acquisition of neural crest cells more than 500 million years ago led vertebrates to evolve and leave behind less complex life forms (simple aquatic filter feeders, much like today's sea squirts and lancelets). With these cells, animals developed important new features such as a skull to house a complex brain, jaws for predation, a complex peripheral nervous system and many other cell types essential to the vertebrate body.

In their study, LaBonne and her research team studied the genetic toolkit that early embryonic cells use to promote pluripotency or "stemness" and compared it to the one used by neural crest cells. They found that the toolkit used by neural crest cells also is used by pluripotent blastula cells, and they showed that it is essential for pluripotency in both cell types. The proteins that derive from this toolkit work together to enable a dizzying array of tissues to arise from a population of single cells.

One of these proteins, called Snail1, has been the focus of previous studies by LaBonne's lab. They and others had shown that Snail1 plays key roles in controlling not only the immense developmental potential of neural crest cells but also their capacity for migratory and invasive behavior.

Cancer cells co-opt the function of Snail1 and other neural crest regulatory proteins to allow the formation of cancer stem cells and mediate the process of metastasis, whereby cancer cells disperse throughout the body to form new tumors, LaBonne said. Researchers therefore gain insights into Snail1's role in cancer by studying its function in the developing embryo.

In early blastula embryos, pluripotent cells were thought to exist only transiently; as an embryo develops, cells become restricted into categories of cells called germ layers and then into specialized cell types. The Northwestern study suggests that not all cells get restricted at those early stages. Instead, neural crest cells may have evolved as a consequence of a subset of blastula cells retaining activity of the regulatory network underlying pluripotency.

The study underscores just how much remains to be discovered about embryonic development. The human body has more than 10 trillion cells elaborately organized into tissues and organs that are intricate and highly complex, yet it all is self-assembled from a single cell, the fertilized egg.

"It's a fascinating process," LaBonne said. "One of the great frontiers in biology is understanding both how complexity is generated and how it evolves to create what Charles Darwin memorably called 'endless forms most beautiful.'"

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Northwestern University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

1. Elsy Buitrago-Delgado, Kara Nordin, Anjali Rao, Lauren Geary, and Carole LaBonne. Shared Regulatory Programs Suggest Retention of Blastula-Stage Potential in Neural Crest Cells. Science, April 2015 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa3655

 

[orogenicman]

Slightly off topic, but this has come up many times and so I include it here.

Complex Archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14447.html

The origin of the eukaryotic cell remains one of the most contentious puzzles in modern biology. Recent studies have provided support for the emergence of the eukaryotic host cell from within the archaeal domain of life, but the identity and nature of the putative archaeal ancestor remain a subject of debate. Here we describe the discovery of ‘Lokiarchaeota’, a novel candidate archaeal phylum, which forms a monophyletic group with eukaryotes in phylogenomic analyses, and whose genomes encode an expanded repertoire of eukaryotic signature proteins that are suggestive of sophisticated membrane remodelling capabilities. Our results provide strong support for hypotheses in which the eukaryotic host evolved from a bona fide archaeon, and demonstrate that many components that underpin eukaryote-specific features were already present in that ancestor. This provided the host with a rich genomic ‘starter-kit’ to support the increase in the cellular and genomic complexity that is characteristic of eukaryotes.

 

[Muhammed]

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Can you first define exactly what you mean when you say "Earth"?

 

[orogenicman]

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

 

[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.

Can you first define exactly what you mean when you say "Earth"?

Earth, as in the third rock from the sun.

 

[Muhammed]

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that determine the age of the Earth?

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Can you first define exactly what you mean when you say "Earth"?

Earth, as in the third rock from the sun.

The Earth has billions of rocks. You make no sense whatsoever.

 

[orogenicman]

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that detemine the age of the Earth?

If I am stupid, then I must point out two things about your response:

1) You miss-spelled "determine", and
2) The potassium-argon dating method can date the oldest rocks. And when you use that method on the oldest rocks, you find that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Now, don't you feel stupid?

 

[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.

Can you first define exactly what you mean when you say "Earth"?

Earth, as in the third rock from the sun.

The Earth has billions of rocks. You make no sense whatsoever.

You asked me to define "Earth". That is my definition (dumbed down for the simple-minded).

 

[Muhammed]

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that detemine the age of the Earth?

If I am stupid, then I must point out two things about your response:

1) You miss-spelled "determine", and
2) The potassium-argon dating method can date the oldest rocks. And when you use that method on the oldest rocks, you find that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Now, don't you feel stupid?

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that detemine the age of the Earth?

If I am stupid, then I must point out two things about your response:

1) You miss-spelled "determine", and
2) The potassium-argon dating method can date the oldest rocks. And when you use that method on the oldest rocks, you find that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Now, don't you feel stupid?

Oldest rock?

I thought you said it was the third rock!

Your statements prove that you are ignorant.

 

[westwall]

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Orogenicman, is that offer open to all comers? Don't doubt the the present dating systems, but, as an older student of geology, will take any free instruction in any aspect of the discipline I can get, LOL. The only crinoids I have ever collected was from Jim Bridger canyon in Montana. I used to check over a small limestone unit near John Day, Oregon, that a couple of young geologists stated had some messed up crinoids in it, but I never could find them.

I don't think that most people are aware of the number of radio isotopes that we now use, nor the depth of time that they are capable of resolving.

I am willing to entertain anyone who wants to learn about geology. I presently live in Georgia, and where I live, it is all weathered granite and schist with lots of Georgia clay soil (saprolite). All on the order of a billion years old. No fossils here, I'm afraid. But where I am from, Louisville, Kentucky, that place is a fossil heaven, with every outcrop loaded with them. And they range from upper Ordovician to Lower/middle Mississippian in age. Quite an age range, and lots of diversity. I can arrange a field trip there, but for me, it is an 8 hour drive just to get there (and another 8 hour drive back). So any trip would have to be planned well in advance so I can set aside time and expenses for the trip.

You forgot the Grenville gneisses, and there are Hadrosaur and Albertosaurus along with a bunch of other marine fossils present in the Cretaceous formations around Macon and Augusta.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Can you first define exactly what you mean when you say "Earth"?

Earth, as in the third rock from the sun.

The Earth has billions of rocks. You make no sense whatsoever.

You asked me to define "Earth". That is my definition (dumbed down for the simple-minded).

You have contradicted yourself.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Can you first define exactly what you mean when you say "Earth"?

Earth, as in the third rock from the sun.

The Earth has billions of rocks. You make no sense whatsoever.

You asked me to define "Earth". That is my definition (dumbed down for the simple-minded).

See, the thing is, you make no logical sense whatsoever.

 

[orogenicman]

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that detemine the age of the Earth?

If I am stupid, then I must point out two things about your response:

1) You miss-spelled "determine", and
2) The potassium-argon dating method can date the oldest rocks. And when you use that method on the oldest rocks, you find that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Now, don't you feel stupid?

This is a thread for me to document massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, both indisputable facts.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.
The universe is 13.82 billion years old.
Evolution is simply: A change in heritabletraits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Now, onto the evidence:
The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, for any nutjobs who actually believe that, educate yourself:
How we know the age:
- Radiometric dating
- The distant starlight and how long light takes to reach us
- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Geomagnetic reversals
- Human chromosomal ancestry
- Ice Layers
- Lack of DNA in fossils
- Perma frost
- Seabed plankton layering
- Stalactites
- Uranium lead dating
- Weathering rinds
- A million other things.
Now, on to the big one... Evolution.
- Remains of ancient organisms
- Fossil layers
- Similarities among living organisms
- Similarities of embryos
- Transitional fossils
- DNA similarities
- Universal common descent
Much more to add, but none the less, I'm in the mood to debate those who deny facts.. Bring it on.
Observed evolution:
Observed Evolutionary Changes
Now, onto the controversial one, human evolution.
human evolution evidence - Google Scholar - Plenty of papers to read, although...
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that detemine the age of the Earth?

If I am stupid, then I must point out two things about your response:

1) You miss-spelled "determine", and
2) The potassium-argon dating method can date the oldest rocks. And when you use that method on the oldest rocks, you find that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Now, don't you feel stupid?

Oldest rock?

I thought you said it was the third rock!

Your statements prove that you are ignorant.

The Earth is the third planet from the sun (known by a certain sit-com as "the third rock from the sun"). It's a friggin metaphor, dufus.

 

[orogenicman]

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Orogenicman, is that offer open to all comers? Don't doubt the the present dating systems, but, as an older student of geology, will take any free instruction in any aspect of the discipline I can get, LOL. The only crinoids I have ever collected was from Jim Bridger canyon in Montana. I used to check over a small limestone unit near John Day, Oregon, that a couple of young geologists stated had some messed up crinoids in it, but I never could find them.

I don't think that most people are aware of the number of radio isotopes that we now use, nor the depth of time that they are capable of resolving.

I am willing to entertain anyone who wants to learn about geology. I presently live in Georgia, and where I live, it is all weathered granite and schist with lots of Georgia clay soil (saprolite). All on the order of a billion years old. No fossils here, I'm afraid. But where I am from, Louisville, Kentucky, that place is a fossil heaven, with every outcrop loaded with them. And they range from upper Ordovician to Lower/middle Mississippian in age. Quite an age range, and lots of diversity. I can arrange a field trip there, but for me, it is an 8 hour drive just to get there (and another 8 hour drive back). So any trip would have to be planned well in advance so I can set aside time and expenses for the trip.

You forgot the Grenville gneisses, and there are Hadrosaur and Albertosaurus along with a bunch of other marine fossils present in the Cretaceous formations around Macon and Augusta.

The gneiss doesn't outcrop here where I live. I'm not interested in trying to collect marine fossils from the Cretaceous. I'm interested in Paleozoic invertebrates.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Can you first define exactly what you mean when you say "Earth"?

Earth, as in the third rock from the sun.

The Earth has billions of rocks. You make no sense whatsoever.

You asked me to define "Earth". That is my definition (dumbed down for the simple-minded).

You have contradicted yourself.

Are you a troll, or do you simply play one on TV?

 

[Ringel05]

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that detemine the age of the Earth?

If I am stupid, then I must point out two things about your response:

1) You miss-spelled "determine", and
2) The potassium-argon dating method can date the oldest rocks. And when you use that method on the oldest rocks, you find that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Now, don't you feel stupid?

Actually, those of us who are not idiots know that the age of the Earth is very subjective.

What is subjective about determining the half-life of Potassium-40?

Are you stupid?

How the hell would that detemine the age of the Earth?

If I am stupid, then I must point out two things about your response:

1) You miss-spelled "determine", and
2) The potassium-argon dating method can date the oldest rocks. And when you use that method on the oldest rocks, you find that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Now, don't you feel stupid?

Oldest rock?

I thought you said it was the third rock!

Your statements prove that you are ignorant.

The Earth is the third planet from the sun (known by a certain sit-com as "the third rock from the sun"). It's a friggin metaphor, dufus.

He's probably never seen it.