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.

 

Radiometric dating and long ages

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Hunter

Originally posted by jake1997

Double blind test.
The same standard as the medical community. Put the dating methods up against a double blind test and then Im with you 1000 %.



What are you talking about??? I have no idea whatsoever about what you are going on about , why don't you just realise that on this particular matter that you are wrong.

This is like banging my head against a brick wall.


What are you going on about now? You said the test is great and there is no agenda. SO I said to start blind testing it.

Im sittin here all casual and having a casual conversation, answering a simple question with a simple answer. Then you get your panties in a wad again. You geo types must die young....high BP or heart attacks.
More power to ya.
But if there is no agenda, then do the double blind test.

I am just waiting for Nygdan to come back. I am simply trying to take up some civil conversation related to the topic while we wait. I opened a new thread for those other topics.

As for no daughter product being created when the parent is created...


fee1962,
Welcome to the thread. Thanks for taking on a civil tone. I understand that many people have trouble controlling themselves when discussing this...so thanks for being level-headed and civil.


The central part of where I am right now with Nygdan is how you can show that there was no daughter element 'born' at the same time the parent was. The same process that created the parent should also logically create the daughter element.
The measurments are worthless if we cant eliminate the possibility.
Nygdan posted an answer and I believe I have grasped its idea, and need confirmation.

That is where Im at right now. I fully understand the test(s), but do not see how the above possible (even likely) case is accounted for.

Thanks




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Hello again Jake, I will follow your advice and be civil so please read my post.


Your first question was answered by rock hunter. At least it seems like a logical explanation to me.




Originally posted by Rock Hunter

The starting daughter amount of Ar is assumed to be 0. This is perfectly acceptable as from lab tests were minerals have been grown it has been found that Ar does not usually incoporate itself into minerals.


Hence therefore the presence of Ar in minerals millions of years old must be from the result of Decay of K, and not from some presence of Ar. As we know the decay constant of K, we can work out the age.


Now, do you believe that the lab tests to grow the minerals are faulty?

Or do you think that that is insufficient evidence to believe that the starting ratio was all parent and no daughter.


Now on to the double-blind tests.

They have been done.

home.austarnet.com.au...


Over the years, numerous interlaboratory studies have been conducted to test and establish standards or monitors for radiometric dating (as examples, Lanphere and Dalrymple, 1965; Samson and Alexander, 1987; Sudo et al., 1998; Renne et al., 1998; Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1969; Jaeger et al., 1963; Flisch, 1982; Turner et al., 1971; Ingamells and Engels, 1976; Odin et al., 1982).


The ages of the standards have been independently measured with different radiometric methods, oxygen isotope records (Karner and Renne, 1998, p. 740) and/or astronomical methods (Renne et al., 1998, p. 121-122; Hilgen et al., 1997, p. 2043). In response to this definitive evidence, Woodmorappe (1999, p. 74) unjustly accuses Hilgen et al. (1997) of 'tweaking' the data to make the astronomical and radiometric results agree.


www.geocities.com...


Of course, interlaboratory studies on radiometric dating and multiple analyses on outcrops with different methods are nothing new. Examples are cited in Harland et al. (1990) for Phanerozoic samples and Dalrymple (1991) for meteorites and Precambrian outcrops. One of the older and well-known interlaboratory studies is Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965). The results of this study are also described in some detail in Jaeger (1979, p. 23-25). In Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965), 55 laboratories were sent a muscovite standard for dating. The average K/Ar date for the muscovite was 83.0 million years and the average Rb/Sr date was reasonably close at 85.7 million years. Interlaboratory standard deviations were only 1.2% for the K/Ar dates and 2.8% for the Rb/Sr dates. These excellent results refute creationist claims that K/Ar and Rb/Sr methods are inconsistent or imprecise.


If you have any problems with the above stated research, please explain why. It seems that interlaboratory, or double-blind, tests have been conducted since the 1960's.

I hope this helps answer your questions.


I am wondering as I research if you are a follower of John Woodmorappe's writings.

He apparently asks many of the same questions in his books, here is a link to a John Woodmorappe biography.

www.rae.org...


Please take the time to respond, I am being civil and I am genuinely interested in your replies to my questions.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
See my earlier post. I explain how the daughter chemical element forms from the parent chemical element quite clearly and how rate of this formation is the basis for calculating the age of a rock. It is important to understand that the decay rates of radioactive elements are constant (i.e., they don't change).

When a particular fossil is also present in the same rock that is radiometrically dated; the mere presence of the same fossil in another rock from another location infers the age of that rock too.

Additionally, much older timeframes or ages that are greater than the age of our planet are inferred from cosmological observations as well. For example, the observation of quasars. Look it up.

Age determinations based on radioactive decay depend upon the measurement of the abundances of a parent isotope and its stable end product, and upon a knowledge of the decay constant.

There are several methods that are deployed:

The Rubidium - Strontium Method
The Potassium - Argon Method
Methods based on the decay of Uranium and Thorium
etc.

I hail from New Jersey, USA and the Precambrian-age rocks of the Highlands Provence (a geologic formation that extends from Reading, Pennsylvania through NJ and into NY and CT) have been radiometric dated to be about 3.1 billion years old.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
The age of the earth really doesn't matter that much. What if there is no God and we are the only intelligent life in the universe? It is certainly possible. That leaves the whole damn thing as ours for the taking. And if we don't kill ourselves, we should take it, man! Manifest destiny! We're a pretty adaptable lifeform and there's alot of material out there to mine and use.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
The central part of where I am right now with Nygdan is how you can show that there was no daughter element 'born' at the same time the parent was. The same process that created the parent should also logically create the daughter element.


Jake, I have already told you the answer, obviously your not even reading my post.

Jake - The DAUGHTER element is formed FROM the parent. Why do you continue to say that the daughter is formed simultaneously with the parent. Daughter elements are not created, they are formed from decay. The only way these isotopes can be be created is from decay. They are not created naturally.

The only thing I can imagine that you mean is that isotopes that were once from the parent somehow were removed and transfered to another rock, making the daughter, as old as, but not equal to, the parent. But I already told you it doesnt matter, because you still have the decayed element and the time it takes to decay. Ask rock hunter about this, he will tell you all the answers.

Please understand this, daughter elements are created FROM parents, not with parents. on the other hand, if you want to ask where parent atoms come from, well, the only answer you will get is, we dont know.

Train



[edit on 4-5-2005 by BigTrain]

[edit on 4-5-2005 by BigTrain]

[edit on 4-5-2005 by BigTrain]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I see where you say its tested, but this is what Im talking about

www.rae.org...

The double blind test would not provide any info to the tester about the rock sample. It would simply be a blind test of the element content. That is not what currently takes place.


Ar does not usually incoporate itself into minerals.

Ar is likely the weakest of the methods. See that link to the site you showed me

Fee1962
Check out that page too. I understand that the daughter comes from the parent, and the math process. That is not in question.



The age of the earth really doesn't matter that much.

I agree. Its mostly a faith thing on either side.

Nygdan

Ok, the best I can get out of that is that the results fall into a predictable pattern. They are comparing the stable daughter to another stable element in the rock and because the ratio falls into that predictable plot, it confirms that the original assumed data was correct.
Now if Im reading it right, the same fault exists. The fact that it falls into line on the graph is a circular reasoning thing


BigTrain


Jake - The DAUGHTER element is formed FROM the parent. Why do you continue to say that the daughter is formed simultaneously with the parent. Daughter elements are not created, they are formed from decay. The only way these isotopes can be be created is from decay. They are not created naturally.

Yes. You've told me. Now I just want you to prove that it wasnt created/born at the same time.
That link at the top has all the questions on one small page



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
For one the earliest dated rock, (not zircon crystal), is from the Canadian Sheild. The Acasta Gneiss. This is a metamorphic rock of granite (though i originally thought it was two kinds of igneous rocks fused together) Lab tests have shown than when a rock is heated to the point where it metamorphisis the bonds strech and let the daughter escape leaving only the parent. This would erase almost all daughter from the rock. The Acasta Gneiss is dated to 3.6 billion years old (I believe
).



[edit on 5-5-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

Im sittin here all casual and having a casual conversation, answering a simple question with a simple answer. Then you get your panties in a wad again. You geo types must die young....high BP or heart attacks.



We just get sick and tired of people like yourself, who don't have any idea what you are talking about, turning up and spouting off about and trying to argue about something when you don't even have a good understanding of the concepts involved. You are clearly not reading, or I suspect delibratley ignoring posts from myeself and others who are writing about the aspects involved in dating methods. We are not argueing about some hairbrain crackpot idea thought up by one geologist. The methods used in radiometric dating are precise and have been heavily scrutinised for over 20 years. We would not use them otherwise!!!

I like reading this Sci-tech post as the majority of people on it are intelligent and sensible people who in virtually all cases know exactly what they are talking about, as I think you can see from the other parts of this post, and the forum. You however appear not to know anything about the subject you are attacking. I suggest you go away read a lot of books and when you have a solid arguement then come back.

Stop trying to get the last word in and just except that your initial arguement has been shredded to pieces.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by silentlonewolf
For one the earliest dated rock, (not zircon crystal), is from the Canadian Sheild. The Acasta Gneiss. This is a metamorphic rock of granite (though i originally thought it was two kinds of igneous rocks fused together) Lab tests have shown than when a rock is heated to the point where it metamorphisis the bonds strech and let the daughter escape leaving only the parent. This would erase almost all daughter from the rock. The Acasta Gneiss is dated to 3.6 billion years old (I believe
).



[edit on 5-5-2005 by silentlonewolf]


This does occur with some early dating methods, at that time they were the best available and were used on the Acasta Gneisses. Certain minerals that are used for dating do loose the decayed daughter from them.
Nowadays the majority of dating done on these very hold highly metamorphosed terrains is done using zircons, as these things are very hardy, and do not loose the daughter decay element.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Yeah.. I guess your right.

But here are the facts

1.) You cannot show me that the rate stayed constant
2.) You cannot show me there was no daughter element created
3.) You turn to your hate speech whenever you get shown this.

Because these are lacking, the methods themselves do not comply with the Scientific Method.


If you cant at least admit the truth, then what is the point in trying to show it to you.
and here is the truth.
The radiometric dating methods are theorectical approximations based on some observations and some assumptions.
They are not sceince fact.

Now you can follow on with your hate comments and insults , but that will not change the truth.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Yeah.. I guess your right.


1.) You cannot show me that the rate stayed constant
2.) You cannot show me there was no daughter element created
3.) You turn to your hate speech whenever you get shown this




Reply to your questions, how more scientific do you want!!!!!!:

1. This is called radioactive decay, and gives us one of the most widely accepted things in science. Half-Life

Do you want me to get a piece of radioactive material and stick a geiger-muller counter in from of it for two weeks and show you!!!

2. Have you not read what I've written in previous threads. The minerals that we date in the field have also been grown in the lab. In the case of K - Ar decay. i.e When K (pottasium) radioactivly decays it turns into Argon, the minerals that have been grown in the lab are tested to see if they contain Argon, to answer the question: Does Argon go into minerals when they are formed in the earth, and thus throwing results off? These lab experiments have been conducted and was found that this does not happen. Therefore the Argon present in minerals after millions of years wasn't there when the mineral was initially formed, but it the result of the decay of k(pottasium). Again do you want me to grown some feldspar and then wack it in a mass spectrometer to show you!!! This type of dating is just one method of an entire arsenal of diffrent methods in dating, and as the years go along and the equipment becomes more accurate so do the results.

3. I don't turn to my "hate" speech when I get shown this. You havn't shown anything on this board!! At not one single point have you presented a proper scientific arguement that goes against what other people have said. Remember you were the one who started this thread, nobody else. It is clear that you are adament not to accept anything else then what you believe, so why bother posting in the first place???

Why can't you accept that the earth is older the 6000 years, this does not necessarily mean that their is no God.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I didnt know they abandoned the asteroid idea.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, the asteroid did hit, and there are some dinos below the iridium caked KT boundary, and none above it. Its a question of if they were already in decline at that point.



Back when NBC ran a show that presented a different view then the darwinian doctrine, there was a backlash that even surprised me. People who disagreed with what was presented were outraged that someone would dare put forward a different view.

You are mistaking concern over a false dogma and pseudo-scientific religious system for 'outrage over presenting another view'.


Watch the way people treat your work after that.

They'd be quite right in thinking that he'd gone over the deep end, to a degree. Its not the idea that advocated so much as the false methodology used to support it.


The line proves the correctness of the data?


more or less, yes. The straightness of the line demonstrates that the assumptions listed in the earlier part have been met, if they weren't met, then the data cannot fall in a straight line/agreement/etc.


Double blind test.
The same standard as the medical community. Put the dating methods up against a double blind test and then Im with you 1000 %.

Its already passed that. The strictures of the geological community are just as high as in the medical community. Its been done for multiple methods, on multiple samples, multiple times.

Not in some closed lab attended only by evolutionists. Video tape the whole procedure or even have 60 minutes there.

No. Unacceptable. its up to the creationist 'researchers' to perform these tests if whats already been done isn't acceptable. There is no reason to assume that every geologist who's done these test in labs all across the world over the decades are part of some conspiracy.


The same process that created the parent should also logically create the daughter element.

Wait, I am missing something, why would the 'process' that creates the parent element also creat daughter element?

It would simply be a blind test of the element content. That is not what currently takes place.

Correct, often there is an idea of what the age is. When a field worker sends a sample to a commercial lab for testing, they often state what they are expecting it to be. However, they also often don't state it, or state contradictory information, to test the testers. The testers, effectively, don't know anything about it.

Now if Im reading it right, the same fault exists. The fact that it falls into line on the graph is a circular reasoning thing

How do you figure? If any of the assumptions were incorrect, then the graph can't fall into the line that it does. THerefore, the assumptions must be more or less correct.

rock hunter
The methods used in radiometric dating are precise and have been heavily scrutinised for over 20 years. We would not use them otherwise!!!

This is the important thing for everyone to consider. A geologist is not a member of a secret darwinian cult. They're scientists, from all over the place, their reserachs are published in publically available journals, their sources of error are noted and even quantified on the charts, their logic is laid out, and scrutinized by the thousands of other geologists around the world.
And its not just 'ivory tower' academics doing this. Geology is a science that has a real interest in getting the correct answers, because of the real world applications, like with the oil industry, and the various geo consulting industries. If they were fundamentally wrong, and really part of a secret cabal (or even 'unconsiously' 'shifted' data to support 'long age') then they'd not be successful. To say the least, if the earth really was 6,000 years old and uniformitarianism was bunk, there'd be great pressure from industry to sort that out and make use of it. And, also, if I had good evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, I'd publish in an instant, and the editors at the journals would love to publish it, because it'd increase their circulation, impact, and prestige. The pressure in the system is to disprove the standard model, not mindlessly reinforce it.


jake1997
1.) You cannot show me that the rate stayed constant

Claim CF210

The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:


The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.


Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).


The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).


Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).


Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).


The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).


2.) You cannot show me there was no daughter element created

Claim CD002

Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)
[...]For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable

Is there any evidence to suggest that there was any daughter element, or even a significant enough amount to alter the results? And, agian, the fact that there are mutliple independent methods that are in concorde with one another, indicates that there weren't strange amounts of the daughter elemenst lying around. True, god could've conceived of a set up that would 'trick' science into indicating an old age, but thats not really saying much.

3.) You turn to your hate speech whenever you get shown this.

I don't know about hate speech, but it is understandable that scientists get worked up when people tell them that they are simple minded foolish frauds. I mean, a christian would get upset if you told them all sorts of similar things, why shouldn't anyone get upset??



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I find the notion that scientists are driven by some secrest agenda and/or vain pride preposterous.

I received formal training in the field of nuclear physics and understand the basic principles and laws of radioactive processes, and principles of radiometry. I bet I used more nuclear instruments in my years in college than the poster and other ATSer will ever get to use.

Every technique or measurement has a "systematic" error assigned to it. In case of limited statistics, there is also statistical error. From the available documents, it would appear that sources of systematic errors are understood and proper values are assigned to the magnitude of such errors. Therefore, any measured time span has an "error bar" attached to it and you can usually find it in publications claiming the find.

Again, any attack on the scientist as some maniacs driven by "pride" or secret master plan is laughable and shows that the poster has little to no knowledge of science and its community.


[edit on 5-5-2005 by Aelita]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita


Every technique or measurement has a "systematic" error assigned to it. In case of limited statistics, there is also statistical error. From the available documents, it would appear that sources of systematic errors are understood and proper values are assigned to the magnitude of such errors. Therefore, any measured time span has an "error bar" attached to it and you can usually find it in publications claiming the find.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Aelita]


This is totally correct, when we date rocks in geology we usually write them e.g 550Ma +/- 0.5 million years, depending on what we have calculated.



[edit on 5-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Nygdan,

On the NBC thing, I believe it went a bit deeper than that. There were threats made. TV has not been known as much more then entertainment and propaganda for most of existence.

I guess I missed something about the graph. It seems to me that if I pick the numbers that start the equation, that I should also be able to predict the end number falling into a range that changes on a curve with the variable data of element content.

On another note... I had some nice links in the grand canyon thread but the thread was ditched. It seems that presenting a video that shows that much science is bad form.
There really is no way of getting around the creation of the creation of the GC being a catastrophy once you see the evidence.
It was trashed because it was considered religion because it makes the bible look correct and there is no way around it.

I dont mind it if we dont agree....but just throwing something out because you dont agree with it is Bovine scathology. Im not saying this in hopes of making something happen... im venting..thats all.

Dont agree? Refute it.
I dont agree with you and I tried refuting it and cant. This thread is done. But it was done the right way.
Saying "I dont agree so Im deleting it" ... That is what I expected at first.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   


On another note... I had some nice links in the grand canyon thread but the thread was ditched. It seems that presenting a video that shows that much science is bad form.......


Was this video by any chance made by people who didn't have any clue what they were talking about, and don't know anything about geology. I reckon it probably was!!

And have you ever considered that the thread may have been pulled because you didn't want to know people opinions, as you already have your own, you simply wanted to goade people again so you could give your view on why "all geologists are wrong".

I have said it all ready and will say it again. Leave the science to people who know what they are talking about.

"Science in a bad form", so your the authority on it now are you, how can you possibly make this allegation when you are so blind and stuck in your opinions that you will not even consider for one moment what people have posted on this thread, and in most cases you have just chosen to totally ignore it. Througout this thread you have not presented any solid SCIENTIFIC information apart from your own personal opinion, (this is not how science works!).





I dont mind it if we dont agree....but just throwing something out because you dont agree with it is Bovine scathology. Im not saying this in hopes of making something happen... im venting..thats all.


Nydan and nobody else on this thread were throwing "something out" Nydan, myself and others have prevented a clear case with extensive explanation and backup.

You on the other hand have consitantly chosen to ingore this, if you want a case of bad science, then this is it.

I cannot understand why it is such a problem to accept that the earth is not 6000 years old. Although I'm paid to do research in geology and believe in the methods that I am using 100%, I still do believe that their is some divine force of some sort. I do not think that a christian is any better of a christian for believing the earth is 6000 years old.

[edit on 8-5-2005 by Rock Hunter]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I guess I missed something about the graph. It seems to me that if I pick the numbers that start the equation, that I should also be able to predict the end number falling into a range that changes on a curve with the variable data of element content.

I don't understand the objection. If the assumptions, such as their being large amounts of daughter element present, were true, then there wouldn't be a straight line connecting the various different data sets. If there were different and anamolous amounts of daughter elements in the earth and the meteors and early planetary system, then there wouldn't be a straight line for all the data points. Perhaps we can ignore it for a moment and say that there was some unknown process that affected the radionuclide this chart was looking at. I think that thats already stretching it for no reason, but perhaps. But then what about the other radionuclides that agree with one another and this system? If they also have weird and anomalous amounts of daughter elements, then they'd give a different answer than this one, yet they agree. Why? We could say that god designed the system to appear old then (actually, that has nothing to do with the 'assumptions' argument anyway), but thats not a very helpful line of enquiry. We could also say, 'what if god designed it to be exactly what science tells us it is'?



I had some nice links in the grand canyon thread but the thread was ditched. It seems that presenting a video that shows that much science is bad form.

Er? No, thats perfectly permisible, to have information. I didn't get a chance to see the thread, do you have a link for it?


There really is no way of getting around the creation of the creation of the GC being a catastrophy once you see the evidence.

Then why do the vast majority of geologists, who have seen the evidence, infact who collected the evidence, agree that it wasn't formed catastrophically?


It was trashed because it was considered religion because it makes the bible look correct and there is no way around it.

That wouldn't get it trashed, just moved.


Dont agree? Refute it.

Not for nothing, but that charge is whats incumbant upon you right now. You disagree that the 'old ages' obtained from radioisotopic dating methods are correct, but haven't refuted them. You have stated that they are 'based' on assumptions. Correct, however, those assumptions are extremely reasonable. What evidence suggests that they are not? The evidence seems to suggest, since the independent tests are all in agreement.


Saying "I dont agree so Im deleting it" ... That is what I expected at first.

Thats not how things operate around here. Administration, and the Modship, as far as I can gather, are of a diversity of opinions on this and other matters. This is a discussion group, we all want to discuss these things. Sometimes somethign might get moved to a different forum, and that can be controversial, but, at least, no one should be closing or deleting a thread merely because they disagree with the content.

rock hunter
Was this video by any chance made by people who didn't have any clue what they were talking about, and don't know anything about geology. I reckon it probably was!!

if it concludes that the canyon was formed by a catastrophe, then right off the bat we can say it was, since the evidence infact supports a gradual formation.
Regardless, it still wouldn't get removed because of that.


Leave the science to people who know what they are talking about.

I don't know about that, I'd modify that to 'don't make concrete statements about science if you aren't a scientists, and if you are a scientists then you know that not much is written in stone anyways'. I mean, anyone can learn the scientific methodology, thats the point, its objective.

I still do believe that their is some divine force of some sort

'Sfunny, becuase one keeps hearing about atheistic scientists and 'evolutionists' (as if its a religion), but, I've only met very few people who were scientists and were also ardent atheists.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


okay. no dates.


2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Earth is present but without form or void. Sounds like a contradiction. Maybe he meant the earth to be just plain old land and not a global entity. So, if that's the case, then earth(global entity) was already existing. The land, however, was all covered with water(see verse below)


And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

now try to think of a hollow shell in which water is covering the inside surface. God's foundation(Job 38 1-4) is in the center. His spirit begins to orbit the inside casting light to the dark waters. Now light is not just now created, but simply casted upon the water(light was always there with God)

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


So this light(which bends) only shines on one side of the interior shell at a time, the other side stays dark.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

what if a day to God was 1,000 years (psalm 90, 1Peter)

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

now the word firmament doesn't seem to make much sense if it is to be interpreted literally because firmament means 'to beat or stretch metal'. But if you understand that the earth was already in existance(the metal beneath the ground), then "firmament" can mean the "expanse" created by the stretching of the earth's metal. (God says he strecthed earth, Is 44,etc.).

So now there is this gap between two distinct bodies of water.


7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


Now as this light keeps spinning around the interior of the world, it begins to dry up some of the water beneath(on the 2nd tier, or the ground)

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.


Now this light or spirit of God decides to go back to his throne room and places in his stead, two lights that carry on the light giving duties...

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Now he starts making beasts and creatures and man....

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


This is what creation science SHOULD teach.
They're hypocrital in believing a Copernican system and not believing what their bible says, which they claim they do.

So, the earth is old and the animals and people are young.
period.





[edit on 9-5-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
[

So, the earth is old and the animals and people are young.
period.






I agree. 6000 years is pretty old and every person and animal are young in comparison.


Steve



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sntx

Originally posted by Plumbo
[

So, the earth is old and the animals and people are young.
period.






I agree. 6000 years is pretty old and every person and animal are young in comparison.


Steve


glad to see another believer on this post, but too bad you've bought into the Creationist, knee-jerk thinking of the age of the earth.

The bible doesn't say that the earth was created on the third day, it was already in existence before Gen 1:1. It was just covered with water so
it(land) was without form and void.

Let me expound, there are two distinct definitions of "earth" in the bible. One meaning just plain old "land" as in Gen 1:10 and the other meaning the entire universe like in Psalm 24.."the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof".

Now hopefully you can see the difference and stop wasting useless time arguing with people using scientific dating approaches that, although may be skewed, can still be in the ballpark, especially when it comes to radioactive dating. The earth is OLD, as in when God laid the foundations of the earth of OLD.

Psalm 102
25Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

If you study my graphic of the earth a couple posts above, you'll see a pyramid looking structure in the center. This is representing the "foundations of the earth" as mentioned in Job 38:4-6.
This is what God created first, many many many many years ago.

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

I guess not.


[edit on 10-5-2005 by Plumbo]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join