6000 year old earth

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

no it's not... that is no where NEAR to the only way to rectify a 6000 year old earth... all of the things that science has discovered to support billions of years could easily be explained by relativity, they do not preclude the earth traveling around the sun only 6000 times in any way shape or form.

Firstly, you have to understand that what we currently understand time to be is nothing like what people of the past have considered it to be.

Second, with time/space currently understood to be inextricably interwoven and our understanding of relativity, it is easy to see a way that both the equivalent to billions of years passing AND the earth only traveling around the sun ~6000 times being BOTH the case.

If as the universe expands, it stretches space/time, then time speeds up the more stretched space/time becomes, so that in the infancy of creation/existence/whatever you label it, time moved much more slowly. This would explain phenomena such as Methuseluh living 900+ years and all kinds of other historical recordings that have been dismissed by those encumbered with the various paradigms.

I'm not one to assert anything as being the actual truth, but the possibility AND plausibility of this cannot be denied...

Jaden

originally posted by: wisvol

Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following observation:

Did Charles Hard Townes win the Nobel Prize for his work in creationism? Did he bring anything new to the table to further creationism and push it into the scientific realm?

Has any creation scientist' ever produced any paradigm changing discoveries? Ever? Or do they consistently lie about evolution and other conflicting scientific theories while making claims they're unable to back up?.....

Dendrochronology is a method of dating based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings.
the tree ring chronology has been pushed back in some areas as far as 11,700 years.

Answer that, then i'll set some for wind erosion and light years!

a reply to: Prezbo369

Did Charles Hard Townes win the Nobel Prize for his work in creationism? Did he bring anything new to the table to further creationism and push it into the scientific realm? Has any creation scientist' ever produced any paradigm changing discoveries? Ever? Or do they consistently lie about evolution and other conflicting scientific theories while making claims they're unable to back up?.....

I was responding to your claim that creation scientists are not scientists.

Which we most definitely are.

Creationism as a belief system is the basis for major scientific advancement including but not limited to the alphabet you are using.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

No tree has lived eleven thousand years.

Wind erosion is caused by wind, not by time.

Light years are a measure of distance, not time.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: stinkelbaum

No tree has lived eleven thousand years.

Pando (tree)

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and assumed to have one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5][6] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[7][8]

a reply to: GetHyped

The link I have given is peer reviewed and states creation as the origin of the world.

I was responding to a claim that creationists aren't scientists, which is false.

Entire peer reviewed schools today study creationism and give their own prizes, although scientists who use creationism as a basis of understanding their surroundings are also awarded secular prizes as demonstrated.

Last post of the week, gotta go enjoy shabbos dinner & company

peace out

edit to add real quick:

Krazy shot indeed: clonal colonies aren't dated through dendrochronology, again with the 14C so if something isn't as radioactive as fresh salmon maybe it's older than Adam but I think it isn't.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Prezbo369

I was responding to your claim that creation scientists are not scientists.

Which we most definitely are.

Oh well I guess that settles than then?

As a 'creation scientist' what discoveries or breakthroughs have you made that have brought something new to the table?

Creationism as a belief system is the basis for major scientific advancement including but not limited to the alphabet you are using.

Belief in a magical god that used magic powers to magically create everything?

Creationism and creation scientists are nothing but the bearers of 2000 year old superstitions, and who rely on lies and misinformation to fool other gullible creationists.

originally posted by: wisvol

The assertion is a strawman and is yours.

Not even close.

Again, my point is that a technique devised in 1950 based on the assumption that 14C relative concentrations are constant through time is not scientific because 14C relative concentrations have doubled between 1950 and 1970, and fluctuated highly ever since.

Yet you continue to ignore all of the science that disagrees with your premise and harp on a singular point over and over as if repeating it many times is evidence. You refuse to acknowledge that when dates are given for artifacts or remains, that 14C is never the sole source of data for the date. I don't care when Libby(who received a Nobel for this work) devised the technique. Multiple independent tests corroborate the dates demonstrating the effectiveness of 14C dating.

You have yet to substantiate your claims that Nuclear testing added 2 neutrons to 12C to create 14C which is particularly odd as I quoted from one of your own citations that 14C is only derived from N. Here, let me help you out with this one-

Nuclear weapons testing brought about a reaction that simulated atmospheric production of carbon 14 in unnatural quantities. The huge thermal neutron flux produced by nuclear bombsreacted with nitrogen atoms present in the atmosphere to form carbon 14. The carbon 14 produced is what is known as bomb carbon or artificial radiocarbon.

To estimate what the levels of 14C are in living things, one has to observe what they are, after devising the technique, therefore after 1950.

Then I guess it's a good thing that Oxalic acid stocked by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards had been placed in storage prior to WW2 and could be used as a baseline for comparison. You do realize that in the 67 years since Libby devised radiocarbon dating that chemists and physicists have learned a great deal more and this knowledge has been applied to radiocarbon dating which is why the margin of error is known, calibrated for and accounted for right? Or do you believe that science is at a standstill and hasn't progressed in 70 years?

For the record, yes, in 1965 testing was done and found that 14C levels were ~double what they were prior to WW2. By the 90's, that effect had been reduced to 20% above pre-WW2 standards.

Again, atmospheric gases are trapped within ice core samples and can be measured to show what these levels were going back ~430 KA, more than 4 times what the most sensitive 14C tests can obtain a date for.

Coincidentally, nuclear detonations are recorded to have happened since the 1950s.
Are they the only factor of the observed fluctuation?

Do you have a citation demonstrating that there other causes of this? The only 2 human factors I am aware of that had any effects on radiocarbon dating are the use of fossil fuels, which reduces 14C in the atmosphere and Nuclear detonations which add to it.

What makes you think that, and more importantly, how would you demonstrate it?

How will you demonstrate the accuracy of your position? What factors do you believe affect atmospheric carbon ratios?

a reply to: wisvol

Ok...got it. You don't even know enough about the topic to know when you are posting links that don't support your position. Well played. I never said anything about clonal colonies. I will admit that I erred and gave the incorrect date of 8KA. The bristlebone pine in question is only 4780 years old +/- but it has been dated via dendrochronology and has been independantly 14C tested. Guess what? The dates matched within the known margin for error.

a reply to: wisvol

You posted some dude's opinion. If you sincerely believe that constitutes "peer-reviewed science" then there is no hope for you.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: GetHyped

The link I have given is peer reviewed and states creation as the origin of the world.

I was responding to a claim that creationists aren't scientists, which is false.

Entire peer reviewed schools today study creationism and give their own prizes, although scientists who use creationism as a basis of understanding their surroundings are also awarded secular prizes as demonstrated.

No... the berkley link is not to a peer reviewed paper. It is a link to a Q&A with the man who helped invent the laser and maser. That's not peer review. It's an interview about why one person believes in god, not evidence that creation is an accurate scientific model.

The vast majority of these "creation scientists" who write articles which are pseudo reviewed by other people suffering from similar confirmation biases are writing on subjects not within the purview of their background. Geologists writing about physics and marine biologists writing about geology and then handing articles and papers off to people who publish them instead of actually reviewing them and testing the data is not peer review. It's on par with the sketchy 'pay to play' journals that have cropped up across the wporld the last couple of decades. Neither of these avenues have anything to do with actual peers reviewing the data. The work is published without even being read in many instances. If the "science" being done by proponents of YEC are valid, why then are they not publishing in reputable journals so that the data can be tested and reproduced independently by people working in the actual fields of study related to the claims being made?

originally posted by: Tsuro
I wanted to post here, but i realized, maybe i might be doing something wrong..

The world is what you believe it to be, dont listen to other telling you that you are wrong cause they dont know either..

I know that radiometric dating puts the age of the earth at 4.65 billion years old with all evidence and additional dating methods corroborating this date. A person can believe there is no such thing as gravity but good luck skydiving without a parachute to prove it.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: stinkelbaum

No tree has lived eleven thousand years.

That's not how the 11,700 year date from dendrochronology was reached...not from a single tree that is.

The date was arrived by matching the thickness of multiple tree rings. Each tree ring covers the span of time it was alive and growing, but you can take the spans that overlap and match the overlapping sections in order to work backward. Doing this creates an unbroken chain of tree rings dating back in some areas as far as 11,700 years....

It's like a "tree ring family tree".

A2D

originally posted by: Jim Scott
I don't have a problem believing the science that proves the Earth is about 7000 years old. Fossils contain C14 and you can't have that in you unless you are less than 500,000 years old (90% less if you consider the Great Flood of Noah). Fossils have fleshy parts, and they can't have that if they are over 4,000 years old. Zircon still contains helium, and you can't have that with an Earth that is old (the experiments show the Earth is about 7,000 years old). Radioactive polonium halos (halos.com) show the Earth cooled suddenly (like in 5 minutes). Expansion of the Universe occurred in 20 hours or less according to E=MC^2. Empirical science (hard science) proves a young Earth. Evolutionists don't agree, because they think they need time to make evolution happen. Evolution cannot be proven on an empirical basis, and is therefore considered soft science. So, yes. About 7,000 years ago. And He made it in 6 regular days. In the Hebrew text, the word for "day" is "yom", and in the over 30 times it is associated with "the evening and the morning" in the Bible it always refers to a 24 hour day. It may be hard to comprehend that there is a God who can do it, but then you may not comprehend astrophysics, either.

The polonium halos have been debunked on this site multiple times. Gentry's work has serious issues which he failed to address including basic dating errors that frankly violate known geologic laws. There are also other explanations that fit with the formation and are in line with known geologic laws.

(Edit: had sources on the refutation but having issues with the hyperlink from my mobile.)

Secondly, you do not have pegmatite formation with an instantaneously cooling earth. Sone of the oldest formed mineral deposits in the canadian shield have massive pegmatite deposites with some of the minerals weighing in excess of thousands of pounds.

Fossils don't have "fleshy" parts. Soft tissue can be fossilized though far more rare of an event than just bone fossilization, but is still not "flesh".

How can expansion of the universe have taken only 20 hours when here we are billions of years later and still expanding?

There is just so much wrong from elementary science standpoint in this post...

All the layers of sediment in the grand canyon and the under sea Hawaiian Island chain of mountains stretching across the Northern Pacific took a lot longer than 6000 years.

How long it took to place life here and tend that garden until it was mature enough to stand on its own… who knows?

a reply to: Cypress


What? Geologic LAWS...and what are these geologic LAWS?

JAden

originally posted by: SaturnFX
also the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years estimated

I like that "approximately" and "estimated" are divided only by the "time frame" in question. lol

a reply to: Masterjaden

Uniformitarianism the present is the key to the past

current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth's geological features. Thus, it assumes that geological processes are essentially unchanged today from those of the unobservable past, and that there have been no cataclysmic events in earth's history. As present processes are thought to explain all past events, the Uniformitarian slogan is, "the present is the key to the past."

Cross-cutting relationships - the thing being cut is older than the thing doing the cutting.

Sometimes magma pushes, or intrudes, into cracks in existing rocks. When the melted rock cools and solidifies, the resulting feature is called an igneous intrusion. This image shows metamorphic rock in Death Valley, California, cut by a darker igneous intrusion. The principle of cross-cutting relationships states that an igneous intrusion is always younger than the rock it cuts across.

Original Horizontality - sedimentary layers are initially deposited in horizontal layers

Any archaeological layer deposited in an unconsolidated form will tend towards a horizontal disposition. Strata which are found with tilted surfaces were so originally deposited, or lie in conformity with the contours of a pre-existing basin of deposition.

Superposition -the layer on the bottom is the oldest, and they get younger as they pile up

in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating, which assumes that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed. The law was first proposed in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.

lateral continuity

Any archaeological deposit, as originally laid down, will be bounded by the edge of the basin of deposition, or will thin down to a feather edge. Therefore, if any edge of the deposit is exposed in a vertical plane view, a part of its original extent must have been removed by excavation or erosion: its continuity must be sought, or its absence explained.

faunal succession

based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata contain fossilized flora and fauna, and that these fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances. A fossilized Neanderthal bone will never be found in the same stratum as a fossilized Megalosaurus, for example, because neanderthals and megalosaurs lived during different geological periods, separated by many millions of years. This allows for strata to be identified and dated by the fossils found within.

Stratigraphic succession

Any given unit of archaeological stratification takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site from its position between the undermost of all units which lie above it and the uppermost of all those units which lie below it and with which it has a physical contact, all other superpositional relationships being regarded as redundant.