6000 year old earth

a reply to: peter vlar

Beat me to it. Geology 101 lol. In fact one of gentry's most egregious errors is that he uses metamorphic rocks as well as dikes and sills in his analysis.

a reply to: Cypress

Sorry about that. Sometimes I can't help myself when the willful ignorance is thick as molasses.

"Also why are we so determined our dating method is foolproof?"

Sorry, but this has to be the stupidest question ever asked on this board. It shows a total lack of work ethic.
If "dating" didn't work, neither would any of the diagnostic techniques utilized in medicine - because they are all based on the same physics.

My recommendation: Get a level 101 physics book and start from page 1 and read forward.
If at the end you don't understand how this all works, then burn the book and sign up at Ken Ham's Creationist
website.

Thank you.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I have read some articles in the past about a particular thing happening approximately 6,000 to 8,000 years ago that had to do with increased growth of the corpus collosum, a collection of neurons that join the two halves of the human brain together.

When the corpus collosum expanded, possibly due to people eating more sugar and grains, and with the two brain hemispheres communicating more efficiently, that sense of mystery rapidly vanished, and people might have finally been able to see existence in a much more rational and practical way.

So, in a way, it may have seemed like "the world as we know it" actually did come into rational existence around that time.

Please link your evidence because, as far as I know, our corpus callosum has been the same for hundreds of thousands of years and even other mammals have it. In fact chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys' corpus callosum is very similar to ours.

Also, if what you say is correct, then we wouldn't have religious people nowadays, unless you are suggesting that those who believe in deitys or the paranormal, have their brains wired differently.



a reply to: deadlyhope

A 6000 year old Earth is impossible and one way to prove this is with stalactites: they have been observed to grow at 0.1mm per year, which means 10 cm per thousand years. If the Earth was only 6000 years old, then stalactites could not be longer than 60 cm: there is a cave in Ireland where the longest stalactite is 730 cm! (Pol An Lonain cave). That is 12 times longer than it should be if the Earth was only 6000 years old.

Heh.

So much going on, I just want to recap on the datation techniques mentioned here so far that exceed 6ky:

. 14C: based on the assumption that 14C levels are constant through time even though they clearly are not, and have been demonstrated to double within twenty years.

. Uranium-lead: claims a cross reference from different isotopic uranium formations and their slow stabilization into lead within other carbon based rocks (here zirconium was given as an example) when in fact both lead and uranium can be found independently on these and other rocks: the fact that uranium slowly stabilizes into lead does not determine the age of the rock any more than a glass of water with an ice cube determines that all the water in the glass was a bigger ice cube at any point or is becoming one necessarily.

. Dendrochronology: Nice way to estimate passage of time considering that seasons do seem somewhat constant or varying little through recorded history, claimed to trace time over 6ky, when in fact it does not.

. Ice core sampling: determines how many different times solid water's surface was frozen, estimating one freeze per year isn't scientifically acceptable.

. Stalactites: growth of stalactites depend on the precipitation of calcite, which is not constant in time.

. Wind erosion (same for water erosion): strong currents will erode the hardest materials, and one storm or tsunami will erode them more in one hour than they are eroded through ten years of regular currents.

. Adding the ages of trees together: trees actually live side by side in time.

. The recapitulative basis for all the above mentioned methods of estimating time passed (except to some degree dendrochronology):

"I observe that a red dodge viper car has passed my house today, just like the day before: therefore in a million years 365,250,000 red dodge vipers have passed here."

Which, although I respect anyone's right to believe anything, isn't science by any stretch.

Now the interesting part was the demeaning attitude of those presenting their worldview to be other than the thread's title: while not proving much insofar as the accuracy of the presented opinions, it does comfort me in my own estimation of the age of the world.

I've read the responses so far because I am aware that others know things I don't, and welcome new knowledge with gratitude.
Claiming creationists aren't scientists, then when confronted with profession of belief in creationism by scientists, claiming that belief in creation isn't science, while beliefs aren't science obviously, does not make conflicting beliefs scientific either.

To end with Lao Tse's take on such matters, from the Tao te king verse LI:

All things arise from Tao.
They are nourished by Virtue.
They are formed from matter.
They are shaped by environment.
Thus the ten thousand things all respect Tao and honor Virtue.
Respect of Tao and honor of Virtue are not demanded, But they are in the nature of things.
Therefore all things arise from Tao.
By Virtue they are nourished, Developed, cared for, Sheltered, comforted, Grown, and protected.
Creating without claiming, Doing without taking credit, Guiding without interfering, This is Primal Virtue.

originally posted by: wisvol
Heh.

Claiming creationists aren't scientists, then when confronted with profession of belief in creationism by scientists, claiming that belief in creation isn't science, while beliefs aren't science obviously, does not make conflicting beliefs scientific either.

No unsurprisingly that wasn't the claim, the claim was anyone that claims to be a 'creation scientist' (such as yourself) was anything but a scientist as they've continuously lied and distorted facts in an effort to convince other gullible creationists.

I've asked three times now for an example of 'creation scientists' bringing anything new to the table to further their claims of magical creation. Still waiting...

a reply to: deadlyhope

Also why are we so determined our dating method is foolproof? Like we can pinpoint some 10-12 digit number to any degree of accuracy? I'm definitely not saying the earth is 6000 human years old, 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.

Now look at what you did. We had all of the Darwinians all settled down and now you have them all stirred up again.
Did you ever consider that the sciences could change with time? Do you believe that the substances of this and other worlds cannot be depleted or mutate? Have you ever considered that we may have been in a closed environment for X amount of time and then became exposed to an open environment? How about the ole idea that there was no sun star to measure our time for X amount of time? When you can open a book and get those answers then you have moved from theory to fact. So far that I know there is no such book.

originally posted by: wisvol
. Stalactites: growth of stalactites depend on the precipitation of calcite, which is not constant in time.

True, the rate varies but the stalactite in Doolin Cave (Pol An Lonain) grows at a rate of 0.01 mm per year, which makes it hundreds of thousands of years old (from 'Caves of County Clare and South Galway', University Of Bristol Spelealogical Society, 2003).

a reply to: Agartha

Thanks for the precise reference.

It is a reasonable assessment in my opinion that the observed rate of growth of these specific stalactites may not have been constant during the entire growth thereof: when a calcite deposit is irrigated, its progressive depletion along with the debit of the water flow irrigating it also does explain the growth being variable through thousands or hundreds of years, or less.
For videos of calcite stalactites on subway ceilings (several cm, where each cm would take a thousand years to form at 0.01mm per year, which isn't possible since the subway system wasn't built), please see www.youtube.com...

Cheers

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Agartha

Thanks for the precise reference.

It is a reasonable assessment in my opinion that the observed rate of growth of these specific stalactites may not have been constant during the entire growth thereof: when a calcite deposit is irrigated, its progressive depletion along with the debit of the water flow irrigating it also does explain the growth being variable through thousands or hundreds of years, or less.
For videos of calcite stalactites on subway ceilings (several cm, where each cm would take a thousand years to form at 0.01mm per year, which isn't possible since the subway system wasn't built), please see www.youtube.com...

Cheers

So in over 100 years that little staglagmite it all you got even if we figure that as one tenth of 1000 years. Also its known that cement forms stalagtites alot quicker than caves cement is mostly calcium. It forms at about a rate of 1cm a year. On the other hand in a cave where calcium has to seep from rocks it can take 200 years to get 1 cm. The process is diffrent and not the same as a cave. Whoever thought up this argument needs to take the time to learn geology. As to another person talking about varying growth rates no they don't. Funny thing is if more water doesn't increase growth it stops it. The water has to be able to sit if its moving to quickly the calcium just doesn't have the time to bind. The drops have to be constant and slow. Any more than a slight drip and the process doesn't work.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Snarl
the 6KYO Earth is the most idiotic notion ever published. The guy who made the calculation was a friggin' atheist FCOL.

actually he was a bishop...

a failed one i believe...

Archbishop Ussher: Ussher chronology

This is an excellent article to read for everyone

Age of the Universe

How old is the world? Ancient commentators propose that the world may be simultaneously young and old.

by Dr. Gerald Schroeder

Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubble telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.

The next paragraph made me roll my eyes but after that its an amazing read for anyone of a scientific belief.

a reply to: wisvol

You are welcome, I never post anything unless I have good references to back up my statement.

Like dragonridr has explained, you cannot compare the stalactites in the subway and those in caves. The cement ones (subway) grow quickly whilst the calcium ones are slower because limestone is not soluble in water and it requires a complex process. The cement ones grow from gypsum/concrete or mortar simply through an evaporative process. They ar two completely different chemical processes that cannot be compared.
From here: LINK

originally posted by: dragonridr
As to another person talking about varying growth rates no they don't.

There is a variation in limestone stalactites growth rate, with the average being 0.1 mm per year and the fastest 3 mm per year, but these are rare and only occurr where fast flowing water is rich in calcium carbonate and carbon dioxide. I read this here: LINK. But I am not a geologist so maybe you can link other references for me to read.

a reply to: Agartha

Observing a slow rate of growth does not imply that the rate of growth being observed has been constant from inception.

One clear and immediate effect of the growth of stalactites is their girth being formed by the same process as their length, therefore requiring more calcite deposit to be carried to the stalactite for it to grow when already wide.
Another is the inconstant nature of both water drip altogether and the chemical content thereof.
Thanks for the link to Kramer's vulgarization book, that may not have taken into account some of the aspects of stalactite formation, as evidenced by professional geologists including those I've studied here: link

In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches or 1 inch / year. At this rate they could have grown 300 ft in just 3600 years.

Sequoia caverns are not in a metropolitan subway system, although that really doesn't change the process much since any kind of calcite source can be found above a cave.

If you don't read Italian, there are other great geology sources including link which has a chapter on speleothem reparation that explains how to calcify a broken stalagmite rapidly, as well as comparison of growth of speleothems, which for any given one isn't constant through time when observed persistently.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Carbon Dating, rings on tree trunks, checking horses teeth...None are precise-it's like asking a paleontologist what time and date a Dinosaur died 65 million years ago. That's just a rounded figure-The KT extinction could've happened 64,736,202 years ago but the estimate is accurate enough to be credible.

originally posted by: wisvol
If you don't read Italian, there are other great geology sources

Do you speak Italian?

(Sorry OP if it seems off topic).

a reply to: Agartha

Yes I do

Especially in Italy, but it's also very close to Latin which has been one of my pet peeves during my time in the universities, geology not so much, but I do have access to quite a diverse library.

a reply to: wisvol

the link is a romanian book, still same structure

a reply to: wisvol

I was thinking of the speleological book by Pidrucci but cannot find the isbn