It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

6000 year old earth

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: wisvol

the link is a romanian book, still same structure


That's why I was asking: I speak three languages fluently, one of them being Italian (I am half Italian), but your link is Rumanian which I cannot understand. It doesn't matter if it's the same structure, I can only understand random words.

I will come back to your Sequoia point later on as I can only find that mentioned in creationist sites which I don't trust. In the evening I will access my local university library and see what I can find there.




posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Got any peer reviewed links or are you just going to quote reviews of books?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

If for reasons unknown to me the US public service is a better source of information to you than video of contemporary calcite speleothem formation, the US national park service proposes simple observable and reproducible experiments on speleothem formation here.

Peer reviewed research means research that has been reviewed by peers.

I am far from the first person to make these points, and am merely reviewing my peers' work.




your link is Rumanian which I cannot understand


Absolutely, I have mentioned Italian by mistake, thanks for correcting.
It so happens that my search engine runs on keywords from another book that are the same in both languages, as the Romanian lexicon is 80% Italian (basically Latin without declination and difference in suffix mostly).



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
Peer reviewed research means research that has been reviewed by peers.


Completely wrong. Peer review has much higher standards than that. It requires review from other scientists and has to be published in an accredited journal where review standards are high. It's not just your friend next door reading your work and agreeing.

That is why creationist scientist is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Scientists can be creationist, but there is no field of science dedicated to creationism because there is no objective evidence, which is what the ID advocates try to claim.
edit on 3 20 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
creation.com...

creation.com...

I wouldn't personally read this peer reviewed journal of scientists accredited with degrees by their respective alma maters, because I don't read journals.

However, its mere existence should dissipate the claim that there is no peer reviewed journal of scientists based on a creationist view of the world.

It seems that their scientific study of biology, geology & c. has not shaken their faith in god or in the account of genesis.

Of course, journals peer reviewed by scientists of opposing opinions exist too, and that's great.

The focus of this discussion is the age of the earth, and I would love to know what actual arguments for million or billion year old earth are beyond "creationists aren't scientists" which is nonsense.
Opposing opinions are necessary to the advancement of science.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Not even close to peer reviewed. Creation Ministries is not an accredited journal. They spout all kinds of nonsense and pass it off like legitimate science, but it's not. Academia knows they are the opposite of science because they start with the conclusion and work backwards. They don't do experiments that prove god or creation or anything related. Science isn't about opposing opinions. It's about opposing DATA. There is no data that supports a young earth, but there is tons that supports a 4.5bya earth.

Maybe this link will help you filter out the BS.

www.omicsonline.org...

Notice what's NOT on the list.

And in case you were wondering:

www.scientificamerican.com...

This link thoroughly explains the history of scientists' quest to figure out the age of the earth.


edit on 3 20 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
this is what accredited means according to Oxford's dictionary.

OMICS.org does not have the authority to determine what journal is and isn't accredited by the scientific community, only the authority to accredit some journals through a list, and based on how those OMICS.org accredits a list of journals based on the same perspective I'd say that's fortunate.

Peer reviewed means other people whose job it is to study and teach science in accredited universities have reviewed before publishing, and the journal of creation, along with answersingenesis.org... for instance, fit that description exactly.

Denying that they do does not help the idea that your conclusions are reached through the scientific method.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
this is what accredited means according to Oxford's dictionary.


It says very clearly "officially recognized or authorized". Creation Ministries is not, no matter how you try to spin it.


OMICS.org does not have the authority to determine what journal is and isn't accredited by the scientific community, only the authority to accredit some journals through a list, and based on how those OMICS.org accredits a list of journals based on the same perspective I'd say that's fortunate.


What a silly argument. It's not just OMICS. You can find that list on numerous sites, just search google for accredited journals and you'll find numerous sources for the same lists. Creation journals are not accredited. End of story. If you wish to blindly deny this fact it's only going to make you look bad.


Peer reviewed means other people whose job it is to study and teach science in accredited universities have reviewed before publishing, and the journal of creation, along with answersingenesis.org... for instance, fit that description exactly.


I don't care what you claim something means. You are wrong. There is no science in "answers in genesis". Anybody can make a website and put "we are an accredited peer reviewed journal" in there. That's called lying. If academia does not recognize it officially as an accredited journal, than it is not one.


Denying that they do does not help the idea that your conclusions are reached through the scientific method.


Neither does playing word games and arguing semantics. You are trolling as usual, just making stuff up to argue about when in reality you have no argument. Prove that creation ministries or answers in genesis DOES follow the scientific method. Academia says otherwise and they already ruled in court that ID science is not science.


edit on 3 20 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

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.


^^I searched for the above, in three different languages, and I found nothing. The same statement I only found in creationist/young earth websites and they all had the same reference, this one: LINK.

The problem is that when you go to Creationwiki, it does not reference the above at all. This is why I don't believe creationist sites, because they post lies and twist truths to fit their views.

Do you have a good reference from a reputable website/book/journal for the Sequoia stalactites?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Thank you for your opinion barcs, I'm sure it is relevant to you.

The journals I have shared links to are indeed accredited by teams of scientists who peer review them before publication, as listed in the links I have also provided.

My argument, since it seems unclear to you, is that any man or woman who has been through the academic process of accreditation in their scientific field is a peer or the scientific community, and the fact that a part of said community reviews and publishes scientific journals based on the biblical account of genesis as opposed to the explosion & soup account of genesis are no less valid until proven otherwise.

Trolling would be denying such evidence or writing demeaning comments on the character of other posters instead of addressing their point.

You are welcome to explain why in your view the earth is millions or billions of years old, I've been waiting to read this from you.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

They aren't officially recognized. End of story. It's not my opinion, it's fact. You are either intentionally trolling or have no clue about anything you are talking about. You have been caught in numerous lies, I shouldn't have even responded to you in the first place, it's clearly trolling.



You are welcome to explain why in your view the earth is millions or billions of years old, I've been waiting to read this from you.

Already gave you a link 2 posts up. If you weren't trolling you'd have read it first. It's not my view, it's based on science. I get that you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

Now if you have EVIDENCE that shows that the decay rate of isotopes used in dating can change their respective rates, then lets have it. Otherwise you are beating the dead horse and appealing to ignorance.


edit on 3 20 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol


You are welcome to explain why in your view the earth is millions or billions of years old, I've been waiting to read this from you.


Oldest dated rocks: wikipedia

Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years OldHow Science Figured Out the Age of Earth


As with so many good scientific puzzles, the question of the age of the earth resolves itself on more rigorous examination into distinct components. Do we mean the age of the solar system, or of the earth as a planet within it, or of the earth-moon system, or the time since formation of the earth’s metallic core, or the time since formation of the earliest solid crust? Such questions remain under active investigation, using as clues variations in isotopic distribution, or anomalies in mineral composition, that tell the story of the formation and decay of long-vanished short-lived isotopes. Isotopic ratios between stable isotopes both on the earth and in meteorites are coming under increasingly close scrutiny, to see what they can tell us about the ultimate sources of the very atoms that make up our planet. We can look forward to new answers—and new questions. That’s how science works.


Scrutinizing science: Peer review

Evidence is a large component of the peer review process. Thus using The Bible as a starting point is not a Scientific process.
edit on 20-3-2016 by aorAki because: b -> B



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha




Do you have a good reference from a reputable website/book/journal for the Sequoia stalactites?


Yes, and as an introduction I'd like to point out what reputable means.

References given by the author of the quote you reproduced here include:

Strahler, A.N., 1987. Science and Earth History—The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, p. 280.
Foster, R.J., 1969. General Geology, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, p. 268.
Plummer, C.C. and McGeary, D., 1996. Physical Geology, seventh edition, William C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, pp. 243–245.
Polyak, V.J., McIntosh, W.C., Güven, N. and Provencio, P., 1998. Age and origin of Carlsbad Cavern and related caves from 40Ar/39Ar of alunite. Science, 279:1919–1922.
Sasowsky, I.D., 1998. Determining the age of what is not there. Science, 279:1874.
Polyak et al., Ref. 4, p. 1921.
Palmer, A.N., 1991. Origin and morphology of limestone caves. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 103:1–21.
Babic, L., Lackovic, D. and Horvatincic, N., 1996. Meteoric phreatic speleothems and the development of cave stratigraphy: an example from Tounj Cave, Dinarides, Croatia. Quaternary Science Reviews, 15:1013–1022.
Palmer, Ref. 7, p. 18.
Palmer, Ref. 7, p. 19.
Hill, C.A., 1990. Sulfuric acid speleogenesis of Carlsbad Cavern and its relationship to hydrocarbons, Delaware Basin, New Mexico and Texas. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 74:1685–1694.
Hill, Ref. 11, p. 1692.
Palmer, Ref. 7, p. 1.
Hill, Ref. 11, p. 1693.

Pictures of indoor (recent) calcite speleothem formations are also available and include www.bible.ca...



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Not reputable.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki




Evidence is a large component of the peer review process. Thus using The Bible as a starting point is not a Scientific process.


Using other books as a starting point is the same method.

As for the links you have kindly provided:


The oldest material of terrestrial origin that has been dated is a zircon mineral of 4.404 ± 0.008 Ga enclosed in a metamorphosed sandstone conglomerate in the Jack Hills of the Narryer Gneiss Terrane of Western Australia.[4] The 4.404 ± 0.008 Ga zircon is a slight outlier, with the oldest consistently-dated zircon falling closer to 4.35 Ga.[5] This zircon is part of a population of zircons within the metamorphosed conglomerate, which is believed to have been deposited about 3.060 Ga, which is the age of the youngest detrital zircon in the rock. Recent developments in atom-probe tomography have led to a further constraint on the age of the oldest continental zircon, with the most recent age quoted as 4.374 Ga ± 0.006.[6]


From en.wikipedia.org... is dated through structural probing, which isn't explained on that website any further: could you explain to me how the structure of a rock determine its age?

In the second example, the website www.livescience.com... states:


By zapping single atoms of lead in a tiny zircon crystal from Australia, researchers have confirmed the crystal is the oldest rock fragment ever found on Earth — 4.375 billion years old, plus or minus 6 million years. "We've proved that the chemical record inside these zircons is trustworthy," said John Valley, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The findings were published today (Feb. 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience.


Could you explain how zapping single atoms of lead in a zircon crystal determine its age?

As for your third link to undsci.berkeley.edu... which states:


Peer review does the same thing for science that the "inspected by #7" sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they're doing has double-checked it. In science, peer review typically works something like this: A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication. The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review). Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.


Do you conclude that this team creation.com... lacks in one or more of the mentioned criteria? If so, would you tell me which?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

That image is not the Sequoia caves, I am not interested in a momument, I have explained already how cement stalactites form faster. I specifically want to know about the Sequoia ones that you brought up as an explanation.

I am very disappointed about the list of 'references' you have produced as you didn't search or read them yourself, but copied them from two creationists websites, one of them: creation.com...

I have actually read the Strahler book many years ago and I know for a fact he never mentioned the quote I am enquiring about.

If you have read all those references you have given me then you would have no problem telling me the original author.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha




If you have read all those references you have given me then you would have no problem telling me the original author.


The author of the quote you reproduce is a geologist by the name of Dr. Duane Gish it seems.

I have read none of those references, and reading them isn't a requirement to presenting them.

What I do know is that what you refer to as cement stalactites are in fact calcite stalactites, pictures of the same within a cave do not prove their recent formation whereas pictures of them indoor does.




I have actually read the Strahler book many years ago and I know for a fact he never mentioned the quote I am enquiring about.


Strahler's book was written in 1987 and is quoted as a reference of the article, not the other way around.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

That site is notorious for listing references underneath their articles that have nothing to do with the conclusions they make. They do this on purpose because the average person isn't going to go read all of those references, so they figure since they provided "science" that they have proved something, when in reality none of their sources has anything whatsoever to do with objective evidence in favor of creation or a young earth. Like I said, if you can provide evidence that shows definitively that the rate of isotope decay can change, you can then question the integrity of radiometric dating methods, but I don't think you have any, and neither do any of the "creationist scientists" that you are so fond of.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Nothing thousands and thousands of years old should be construed as "young".

The rate of decay of isotopes being constant or inconstant isn't the only obstacle to dating rocks by radioactivity.

The date of formation of these isotopes is too, as well as the presumed decayed nature of the isotopes' stabler products:

A rock containing lead maybe never was containing uranium, a rock containing both may not have have contained only uranium at any point: not all lead is from uranium.

196Hg decays into gold, and not all gold mines were quicksilver in some remote past.

Not all the stable carbon used to be 14C either.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Understanding the formation process of uranium simplifies the debate substantially, and fortunately this science isn't accessible to the public, yet the principle that not all elements are slowly decayed from more complex elements shouldn't be that substantial an obstacle in the debate we're having.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

The author of the quote you reproduce is a geologist by the name of Dr. Duane Gish it seems.


No, it’s not, I searched. Nobody has authored that quote YOU have posted as evidence and it’s important because it has ‘facts’ that disprove the slow growth of calcium stalactites. Do you know why Creationwiki doesn’t reference that quote? Because they made it up. Those 'facts' are lies.


I have read none of those references, and reading them isn't a requirement to presenting them.


You should read their references to find out by yourself whether they are lying or not, which they usually are as we have just shown with the Sequoia quote. They play gullible people for fools, the reason why I dislike creationist sites so much.


Strahler's book was written in 1987 and is quoted as a reference of the article, not the other way around.


Are you playing games with me? I asked you very clearly to provide me with some references to back up the Sequoia quote and you gave me Strahler. I didn’t ask for a reference to an article we didn’t even talk about, I asked you for a reference about the Sequoia quote YOU provided as evidence. And you referenced Strahler who never mentioned something as ridiculous as calcium stalactites growing 25.4 mm per year.




top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join