6000 year old earth

a reply to: deadlyhope

I am saying 6000 years - Adjusted to 2.1 billion human years, is not in any way a false representation of when things on this earth started happening, especially if the two are simply estimates, due to the unreliable nature of The Bible and it's thousands of translations, changes, etc.. and can be assumed to have a margin of error. Anyways, food for thought! Thanks for reading!

Seeing you also bought different "qualitative" year for God into the post, why cant the Earth be 6000 seconds old. I mean I don't have any real proof there was any one alive before 1910 AD or 1856 AD for that matter.

Was there any benefit to ATS in starting such a thread?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why would I?

Or trillions, or even millions?

I'm saying it's a neat opinion, am interested in how the conclusion is reached.

a reply to: wisvol

Radiometric dating

Uranium-lead dating method

The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[13][18] An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[19]

Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[20] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. Zircon has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[21]

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.

Rubidium-strontium dating method
Main article: Rubidium-strontium dating

This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So highly radioactive rocks are from the future then?

a reply to: wisvol

Are you being purposely obtuse here or just asking silly questions to troll me? Because you should know damn well that question has nothing to do with the information I provided.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is that so?

If radioactivity determines the age of rocks, how does it only go into the past?

More importantly, do rocks that aren't radioactive at all, and pure lead come from infinity in the past?

Because it doesn't sound too convincing.

Unless one only sees two options when there are others:

Are you being purposely obtuse here or just asking silly questions to troll me?

And don't take it personally either: my question was not addressed to you at all.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is that so?

Is what so?

If radioactivity determines the age of rocks, how does it only go into the past?

Because that is how age works... It's a gauge of how long that object has existed dating back into the past. It has nothing to do with the future.

More importantly, do rocks that aren't radioactive at all, and pure lead come from infinity in the past?

More importantly, this is a dumb statement. If a rock's age cannot be determined with radiometric dating, there are other methods that can be used. And failing that doesn't mean that the rock has existed forever. It just means scientists just don't have an answer to its age.

Because it doesn't sound too convincing.

And you sound like a huge troll asking these ridiculous questions with obvious answers and trying to sound clever by doing so.

Unless one only sees two options when there are others:

Options like what?

And don't take it personally either: my question was not addressed to you at all.

The question you asked in the post that specifically said "A reply to: Krazysh0t" wasn't directed at me? Interesting...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This question:

a reply to: deadlyhope I guess the Bible is consistent in its inconsistencies. So your book says rocks are billions of years old? Neat Care to share how that makes more sense?

which you took upon your self to answer with radioactive datation method, was indeed not addressed to you, and our correspondence stems from your addressing a comment to me, which I keep responding to despite your suggestion that I am an obtuse individual or a troll, and making dumb statements while quoting another question as you just did.

This said, datation methods based on radioactivity which only work on certain radioactive rocks and not others, and not at all on non radioactive rocks, aren't something I would put much credence in, personally.

Congratulations on your opinion though.

originally posted by: wisvol
This said, datation methods based on radioactivity which only work on certain radioactive rocks and not others, and not at all on non radioactive rocks, aren't something I would put much credence in, personally.

Why? Because you don't understand the science properly and can't see that it is based on math and scientific laws? I mean that's all I'm getting from your poor reasoning on why you can't trust the dating. Either that or you just don't want it to be true.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The method you present is based on the scientific law of half-time decomposition of isotopic atoms.

The fact that this method negates data from the majority of isotopic material, coupled with the fact that isotopes are constantly produced within observable time frames, makes this method less than scientific.
Of course it coincides with another theory according to which billions of years are needed to spontaneously transform soup into oak and platipus, so therefore it's valid to those who think that way.

And of course you again only see two options: either I don't understand it or I don't want it to be true.
Because you put faith in the book you quote and call your faith science while science already has a meaning.

And that's fine by me, what ever makes you feel smug bud.

a reply to: wisvol

I've never seen someone properly explain carbon dating. I'm not saying I'm against it, simply that assuming carbon levels have always been the same is not very scientific in nature. What if carbon levels were actually a tenth of what they assumed? Wouldn't that mean that they are misjudged calculations by a large amount?

What if the actual amounts varied by a large amount from Era to Era?

If anyone can explain this to me - why we assume a constant level of this particular radioactive element, I'd appreciate it.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The fact that this method negates data from the majority of isotopic material, coupled with the fact that isotopes are constantly produced within observable time frames, makes this method less than scientific.

How so? Explain yourself here. I want to hear EXACTLY how radiometric dating theory violates the scientific method.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Gladly

Ionized hydrogen (protons) are emitted by the Sun constantly.


While the emitted protons have different frequencies depending on the circumstances of their emission, some have a frequency compatible with stable Carbon, in which nucleus already are twelve protons: this results in isotopic Carbon with thirteen protons, which when hit with other protons with yet another frequency will take in another and become isotopic Carbon with fourteen nuclear protons, less stable through time.
It is a reasonable estimate that it takes about 6k years for any lump of this radioactive coal to be halfway stabilized, meaning to re-emit half of its isotopic protons.

Now, the sun isn't exactly constant in its emissions, and isn't the only source of this type of radioactivity (gamma radioactivity, aka emitting protons) Another example is isotopic carbon obviously, but not the only other example.

Therefore I do agree that assuming the age of something based on the amount of isotopic carbon therein is less than acceptable by scientific standards.

a reply to: wisvol

Hmm interesting.

Would weather, volcanic activity, and such change these numbers, if consistent over years?

a reply to: wisvol

erratum: I was thinking of alpha radioactivity, gamma being the emission of photons, my mistake.
It's been a long day.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Weather as in variations of exposure to sun, yes
Volcanoes, maybe but I don't see how
Radioactivity in the vicinity, proven to do so

Other chemical reactions and circumstances too

originally posted by: wisvol

Therefore I do agree that assuming the age of something based on the amount of isotopic carbon therein is less than acceptable by scientific standards.

Carbon dating isn't the only form of radiometric dating though.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Aside from the obvious science, the big thing going against the idea of a 6000 (or 2.1 billion) year old earth, is that in the creation story they talk about literal days with the sun rising and setting. To me this counters the 1 day to god is like 1000 years. We know that life evolved over time, it didn't all spring up at once, so there is nothing at all that suggests 6,000 (or 2.1b) is accurate.

a reply to: wisvol

I'm not sure if the great flood is accepted in any other circle other than Bible believers, but some believe that clouds completely enveloped the earth, and the air up there was essentially.. Clean? As in, vapor has to have something to condense onto something to actually become water droplets. Some think a volcanic eruption, asteroid, or otherwise kicked up a lot of whatever, hence lots and lots of rain.

Does this make any sense? It's a lot of assumptions, but does anyone know if it's theoretically a sound theory ?

Also, if the cloud envelope was real.. Would that skew carbon dating to be deemed completely unreliable?

a reply to: wisvol

A big factor is whether sun radiation is absorbed by carbon in the air or in the plants.

the more the air absorbs the right frequency travelling alpha radiation, the less plants on the ground will

theorizing that animals end up with similar amounts of isotopic carbon and stop doing so when they die is based on their eating plants whose carbon has been rendered isotopic, and since some animals eat the fruits rather than the leaves, which are the front line of sun exposure, these levels would be vastly different in those animals, but hey as long as it coincides with public school programming, why not