B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
That’s interesting. What about the rest of the stories on that page?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rossum
Guest
First, check them all against the points made on the site I referenced: Index to Creationist Claims. Young Earth Creationists have a tendency to copy, uncritically, from each other. They often do not check the veracity, or the scientific relevance, of each other’s work.That’s interesting. What about the rest of the stories on that page?
One of the few exceptions is a piece by CMI: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, which is also worth reading.
There is much disinformation circulating in the YEC world, copied from site to site, without checking back to the original source, and without checking whether the original source has been superseded. In science, a result can be withdrawn or superseded, so that needs to be checked for when using an old reference.
rossum
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
I’ve only heard 2 of those stories. One is ‘Paluxy tracks’ and the other is that it didn’t rain before Noah (which I believe.)First, check them all against the points made on the site I referenced: Index to Creationist Claims. Young Earth Creationists have a tendency to copy, uncritically, from each other. They often do not check the veracity, or the scientific relevance, of each other’s work.
One of the few exceptions is a piece by CMI: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, which is also worth reading.
There is much disinformation circulating in the YEC world, copied from site to site, without checking back to the original source, and without checking whether the original source has been superseded. In science, a result can be withdrawn or superseded, so that needs to be checked for when using an old reference.
rossum
One thing I don’t believe is that scientists can accurately measure the age of stuff. I never will believe it either.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’ve only heard 2 of those stories. One is ‘Paluxy tracks’
That one is a hoax.
and the other is that it didn’t rain before Noah (which I believe.)
R
rossum
Guest
They also include the Coso Artefact which goes to show the appallingly bad quality of their research. They just copy anything they can find, without bothering to check it.I’ve only heard 2 of those stories. One is ‘Paluxy tracks’ and the other is that it didn’t rain before Noah (which I believe.)
See Radiiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.One thing I don’t believe is that scientists can accurately measure the age of stuff. I never will believe it either.
rossum
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
It’s my understanding that when different people carry out these procedures they get different results.They also include the Coso Artefact which goes to show the appallingly bad quality of their research. They just copy anything they can find, without bothering to check it.
See Radiiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
All scientists get different results, which is why all scientific results come with a “±” margin of error. We look at a number of different results, together with their margins of error, and see if we can get a reasonably accurate result.It’s my understanding that when different people carry out these procedures they get different results.
Here are some figures:
Code:
Number Age (billions
Type Dated Method of years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21You can see that the numbers all differ slightly, but they are all reasonably close together, given the amount of error on each result. They all cluster around the Earth being 4.4 to 4.5 billion years old. That is how science works. By testing things using multiple methods and using multiple sources of data.
rossum
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
I refuse to have faith in the new religion of Scientism.
There are frauds in every field. All evidence that isn’t discovered by a scientist is not necessarily false.
Anthropologist are notorius for falsifying their findings. Piltdown man for instance.
I still don’t believe Radiiometric Dating. They can’t even get the age of the Shroud of Turin dated correctly.
There are frauds in every field. All evidence that isn’t discovered by a scientist is not necessarily false.
Anthropologist are notorius for falsifying their findings. Piltdown man for instance.
I still don’t believe Radiiometric Dating. They can’t even get the age of the Shroud of Turin dated correctly.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is good to call the reasoning aspect of scientific study to task. This allows us to get closer to the truth.I refuse to have faith in the new religion of Scientism.
There are frauds in every field. All evidence that isn’t discovered by a scientist is not necessarily false.
Anthropologist are notorius for falsifying their findings. Piltdown man for instance.
I still don’t believe Radiiometric Dating. They can’t even get the age of the Shroud of Turin dated correctly.
B
bmullins
Guest
While I have no problem with carbon dating(or radiometric dating, or any even counting tree rings for that matter), I find using the test results and the comparison of the test results against itself not a valid proof. If the system were erroneous comparing them and their tolerances would only show that they all err in the same manner.All scientists get different results, which is why all scientific results come with a “±” margin of error. We look at a number of different results, together with their margins of error, and see if we can get a reasonably accurate result.
Here are some figures:
Source: The Age of the EarthCode:Number Age (billions Type Dated Method of years) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76 Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34 Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02 Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06 L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12 L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12 LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02 LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06 E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04 E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13 Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19 Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30 Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19 Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18 Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21
You can see that the numbers all differ slightly, but they are all reasonably close together, given the amount of error on each result. They all cluster around the Earth being 4.4 to 4.5 billion years old. That is how science works. By testing things using multiple methods and using multiple sources of data.
rossum
I think the important thing to remember is that old earth and young earth are not important in matters of faith. You can believe in either and still receive the same lessons from the bible, which is what we are supposed to get. It’s a book of faith, it teaches us that not science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Earth’s ‘Time Capsules’ May Be Flawed
Found in rocks throughout Earth’s crust, zircons are some of the oldest bits of mineral on Earth. These tiny crystals are so durable—and some are so ancient, dating to just 150 million years or so after our world formed—that geologists have long viewed the tiny bits of minerals embedded within them as a kind of time capsule, offering a peek at conditions on the early Earth. But a new study suggests that these so-called inclusions are not as pristine as scientists thought, raising doubts about conclusions that researchers have drawn from them, from the rise of early oceans to the movements of the ancient continents.
In the new study, researchers led by geologist Birger Rasmussen of Curtin University in Bentley, Australia, analyzed more than 7000 zircons from a portion of the Jack Hills of Western Australia, where rocks are between 2.65 billion and 3.05 billion years old. These zircons ended up in the Jack Hills rocks after eroding from rocks that were even more ancient, and the researchers painstakingly sorted the individual crystals from other bits of minerals. Many of the individual, centimeter-sized pebbles in the silicate-rich conglomerate have been heavily metamorphosed—stretched, flattened, and sometimes chemically altered when tectonic activity carried them deep within Earth, where pressures and temperatures are hellish. Zircons in the rocks were exposed to the same conditions. “These zircons have been absolutely hammered,” Rasmussen says.
more…
Found in rocks throughout Earth’s crust, zircons are some of the oldest bits of mineral on Earth. These tiny crystals are so durable—and some are so ancient, dating to just 150 million years or so after our world formed—that geologists have long viewed the tiny bits of minerals embedded within them as a kind of time capsule, offering a peek at conditions on the early Earth. But a new study suggests that these so-called inclusions are not as pristine as scientists thought, raising doubts about conclusions that researchers have drawn from them, from the rise of early oceans to the movements of the ancient continents.
In the new study, researchers led by geologist Birger Rasmussen of Curtin University in Bentley, Australia, analyzed more than 7000 zircons from a portion of the Jack Hills of Western Australia, where rocks are between 2.65 billion and 3.05 billion years old. These zircons ended up in the Jack Hills rocks after eroding from rocks that were even more ancient, and the researchers painstakingly sorted the individual crystals from other bits of minerals. Many of the individual, centimeter-sized pebbles in the silicate-rich conglomerate have been heavily metamorphosed—stretched, flattened, and sometimes chemically altered when tectonic activity carried them deep within Earth, where pressures and temperatures are hellish. Zircons in the rocks were exposed to the same conditions. “These zircons have been absolutely hammered,” Rasmussen says.
more…
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
I’m not a proponant of young earth old earth or anything else. I just want to see the truth. Some archeologists hide some facts and embellish other facts instead of trying to get a grip on the whole thing. It’s like finding one piece of a puzzle and then telling us what the whole puzzle looks like. They dig up old monkey skulls and try to tell us it’s human. OK I’m finished griping about scientism.
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for that. It shows that dates obtained from zircons may be either correct, or too young. No doubt scientists will now be re-examining their dating results from zircons to see if the ages need to be increased to account for these new results.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
You are correct, we need to cross-check our dating methods. Scientists use counting tree rings, or varves, or annual ice layers, to calibrate radiometric methods. Historical events can also be used, such as carbon dating wood from Pompeii. By using different methods, with a different scientific basis, we can cross-calibrate methods. When different clocks, working on different principles, give the same time, you can be reasonably sure that the time shown is accurate.While I have no problem with carbon dating(or radiometric dating, or any even counting tree rings for that matter), I find using the test results and the comparison of the test results against itself not a valid proof. If the system were erroneous comparing them and their tolerances would only show that they all err in the same manner.
Agreed.I think the important thing to remember is that old earth and young earth are not important in matters of faith. You can believe in either and still receive the same lessons from the bible, which is what we are supposed to get. It’s a book of faith, it teaches us that not science.
rossum
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Scientists agree with you.I refuse to have faith in the new religion of Scientism.
True, theology included.There are frauds in every field. All evidence that isn’t discovered by a scientist is not necessarily false.
Proven by scientists to be a hoax.Anthropologist are notorius for falsifying their findings. Piltdown man for instance.
Do you believe weather exists? Meteorologists get their predictions wrong all the time.I still don’t believe Radiiometric Dating. They can’t even get the age of the Shroud of Turin dated correctly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.