The Earth cant be billions of years old...

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Anyone ever heard of the Ica stones?Or artifacts from mexico depicting a civilization lost to us?How about ooparts?If someone took a long look a these things, one might start to question evolution, and our knowledge of history as a whole.




posted on May, 14 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Ancient wars, actually the individual skirmeshs, consisted of hundreds if not thousands of troops dying on each side, per event. Thereby eliminating the reproduction capabilities of some small villages for up to ten years. Since the advant of modern warfare devices the need for mass attrition in armies is not needed. And as precision guided weaponary increase then again the number of total troops required to engage in battle becomes less and less.

Consider warring Celtic clans where hundreds would die on the battlefield in one afternoon. Compared to 800 or so US soldiers after more then a year on the battlefield.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Try to read this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I don't really come into my own until the last 5 pages, approx.

Here's what I only posted as reference to the age fo the earth...
deal with it.
definition of rock-dating, mentions what assumptions go into it:
www.radiometric-dating.com...
www.uniformitarianism.net...
www.catastrophism.net...
How carbon-14 works:
www.creationism.org...
"The Unreliability of Some Old-Earth Dating Methods":
www.creationism.org...
"New Discovery Challenges Star-Dating Techniques"
www.creationism.org...
AN AUSTRALIAN FOSSIL INSECT BED RESULTING FROM CATACLYSMIC DESTRUCTION:
www.icr.org...
DUBIOUS RADIOGENIC Pb PLACES U-Th-Pb MINERAL DATING IN DOUBT
www.icr.org...
"EXCESS ARGON": THE "ACHILLES' HEEL" OF POTASSIUM-ARGON AND ARGON-ARGON "DATING" OF VOLCANIC ROCKS
www.icr.org...
RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
www.icr.org...
POTASSIUM-ARGON AND ARGON-ARGON DATING OF CRUSTAL ROCKS AND THE PROBLEM OF EXCESS ARGON
www.icr.org...
Dating in conflict
www.answersingenesis.org...
Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism.
www.answersingenesis.org...
The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
www.answersingenesis.org...
The Failure of U-Th-Pb 'Dating' at Koongarra, Australia
www.answersingenesis.org...
Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
www.answersingenesis.org...
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
www.answersingenesis.org...
Is Young-Earth Creationism a Heresy?
www.answersingenesis.org...
RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!
www.answersingenesis.org...
Billion-fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Demonstrated in Laboratory
www.answersingenesis.org...
Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment
www.answersingenesis.org...
The collapse of ‘geologic time’
www.answersingenesis.org...
New radiohalo find challenges primordial granite claim
www.answersingenesis.org...
New record of polonium radiohalos, Stone Mountain granite, Georgia (USA
www.answersingenesis.org... EXCESSIVELY OLD "AGES" FOR GRAND CANYON LAVA FLOWS
www.icr.org...
RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?
www.christiananswers.net...
NUCLEAR DECAY: EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD
www.icr.org...
POLONIUM RADIOHALOS: STILL "A VERY TINY MYSTERY"
www.icr.org...
RADIOHALOS - SIGNIFICANT AND EXCITING RESEARCH RESULTS
www.icr.org...

Have got into things in the other thread, go check it out.
It's not nice to gang up on people,



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlc163
Here's what I only posted as reference to the age fo the earth...deal with it. definition of rock-dating, mentions what assumptions go into it:

It's not nice to gang up on people,


Well all the links you posted come from 3 separate RELIGIOUS CREATIONISTS web sites that are attempting to defend their beliefs in the Bible. I realize that you thought it would be impressive to list a full page of support for your ideas but let’s get our information from separate credible scientific resources instead. OK…

Lets see what NASA says.


How old is the Earth?
About 4.5 billion years based on radio active dating using uranium and thorium isotopes. It could be a little bit older if it formed as a liquid mass, since this state resets nuclear isotope clocks which only date from the onset of a solid phase. The oldest meteorites are about 4.8 billion years old so that is probably the upper limit for the Earth too.


image.gsfc.nasa.gov...


How old is the Earth?

Radioactive dating using uranium decay to lead gives an age near 4.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 0.1 billion years either way. The oldest rocks recovered from ancient geological strata are about 3.9 billion years old or thereabouts. The oldest moon rock samples from the lunar highland regions are about 4.2 billion years old. And meteorite samples recovered from many localities indicate ages of 4.5-4.9 billion years for the minerals, or dust grains. Presumably, this meteoritic material dates from a time when the solar system was just forming, and the planets had not as yet begun to appear. The oldest signs of life in the form of fossil bacteria, date from about 3.8 billion years and indicate that life began to appear on the surface of the Earth within about 500 million years after the planet had begun to form a stable crust that allowed radioactive isotopes to be trapped, and allow the possible of radioactive dating to yield ages near 4.5-4.7 billion years.

Computer models suggest that it only takes less than 5 million years to form a planet, but afterwards, the planet is constantly bombarded by small asteroids, so for much of the 500 million years since its formation, and the appearance of life, the surface must have been periodically devastated by tremendous impacts. Some biologists speculate that life may have appeared several times, and each time blasted into oblivion, before the bombardment subsided and life could at last establish itself around 4 billion years ago.

The Creationists are the most troubling of these factions. They have published many pages that purport to show evidence that the Earth is young. They require from a literal reading of the Bible according to THEIR way of reading it, that the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old. To make this work, they have to claim that radioactive dating is a fraud, and leads to conflicting results. They have expertly collected a variety of discordant age estimates, or references to conflicting results in the literature, but when you look closely you will find that their references are either 50-100 years out of date, or they have completely misrepresented the scientific evidence.


image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Now lets ask the USGS (United States Geological Survey).


Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation.


pubs.usgs.gov...

Lets see what the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and a Dean Morgridge Wisconsin Distinguished Graduate Fellowship have to say.


The accepted view on an infant Earth is that shortly after it first formed 4.5 to 4.6 billion years ago, the planet became little more than a swirling ball of molten metal and rock. Scientists believed it took a long time, perhaps 700 million years, for the Earth to cool to the point that oceans could condense from a thick, Venus-like atmosphere. For 500 million to 600 million years after the Earth was formed, the young planet was pummeled by intense meteorite bombardment. About 4.45 billion years ago, a Mars-size object is believed to have slammed into the Earth, creating the moon by blasting pieces of the infant planet into space.

"This early age restricts theories for the formation of the moon," Valley says. "Perhaps the moon formed earlier than we thought, or by a different process." Another intriguing question is whether or not life may have arisen at that early time. Low temperatures and water are preconditions for life. The earliest known biochemical evidence for life and for a hydrosphere is estimated at 3.85 billion years ago, and the oldest microfossils are 3.5 billion years old.


www.nsf.gov...



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I gave a long list because I wanted dpeople to actually read them and think on them before answering, so that way I wouldn't have to post a 3 paper essay as to how little you actually KNOW about both sides of the argument. It has nothing to do with impressive, it has to to with BUSY.
I like a little common sense--ah! They are not just qoting the bible, in fact, I don't remember a lot of scripture dripping from them. These men who write they often quote EVOLUTIONISTS in their arguments. (Dr. Bert Thompson is one of my favorites--not used here!) Many are scientists, with a DOCTORATE BEHIND THEIR NAME. What's there to fear reading this? 'Fraid your mind would get poisioned? Read them before you bash them, otherwise, as I said, I'll have to write you a paper...and that takes me days...but I'll pull some thing out into the open for those too lazy to click one poor button.
Open scorn, pot shots, and sneering down noses at people gives one little time to actually think. LOOK at what I posted.
(The semi asenine behavior at the last post, towards the end was to catch your attention; it served my purpose pretty well--damn, you are giving me too much to smile about.
)
But seriously, read before you bash.
in fact, it might be a good deal if you'd read this first: it might explain the ideas of creationists from one scientist's mouth.
FALSE CHARGES AGAINST CREATIONISTS by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
www.apologeticspress.org...&r9312a.htm
Now, I'm off to figure out how to respond the the "FACT" you put up, k, sweetie?


[Edited on 15-5-2004 by jlc163]



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
The Earth cant be a billion years old because there would be billions of humans on Earth. In 1900 there were about 1 billion people on Earth. One hundred years later it is nearly 10 billion people on Earth. If humanity is eve maybe 40,000 years old there would be nearly 60-100 billion people on Earth. I dont have a link or anything i just thought this up in my head about the Earth's population. What do you people think?


Your argument is already proven wrong.

The Population explosion on earth was resultant of the Industrial revolution.

This is why in the 1830s to the mid-1900s the Developed world had a population explosion, and now the developing world (about 50-100 years behind the developed world in many respects) is having their population explosion.

Since the dawn of man the population grew relatively, then peaked for about 2,000 years at 100 million.

Then with the Industrial revolution we saw a massive increase in population.

Your theory is not taking into account the fact that there are FACTORS to population growth, and that population growth is not constant. In the 1860s America was having about 6 children to parent. My Great Great Great grandmother had 13 children fighting in the Civil War.

13.

Today the average American woman has 2 children.

If you take into account these variables this explains why your theory is wrong.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Ok, let’s take a look at what I actually put down:
First, let’s look at what I posted as my first thread, k, luv?
Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation: a pretty thorough explanation, for 200+ words, about how radiometric Dating works.
Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions:

1. The rate of decay remains constant. 2. There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock). 3. We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age).


How old is the Earth? About 4.5 billion years based on radio active dating using uranium and thorium isotopes. It could be a little bit older if it formed as a liquid mass, since this state resets nuclear isotope clocks which only date from the onset of a solid phase. The oldest meteorites are about 4.8 billion years old so that is probably the upper limit for the Earth too.

Without leaving this one minor site, we get the problem with Uranium dating:

"When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE [2] papers reports on. The samples were sent… to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years." [3]

Someone else with the same problem with Uranium:

TAS WALKER, B.Sc.(Hons) [geology], B.Eng.(Hons), Ph.D., worked in power station design and operation, and the geological assessment of coal deposits. He works full-time researching and speaking for Answers in Genesis in Australia.
And this was the article based off his work, written by him:
www.answersingenesis.org...
Uranium Decay:

One of the products associated with uranium decay is a particular isotope of helium. The best measurements made to date reveal that there is not enough of this type of helium in the atmosphere to support alleged decay of uranium for more than 6000 years.
www.creationism.org... in

Other methods, for example, uranium-lead and thorium-lead ages, have been found to result in contradictory evidence. A classic example is that the dust samples on the surface of the moon seem to be older than the rocks underneath (CRSQ , 1971, 8:3, p.203).
www.creationism.org...
Now, this one, written by: Wayne Jackson, M.A. OUR EARTH—YOUNG OR OLD? , quoted Frederic B. Jueneman (1982, p. 21). (this is paraphrased, go read the article for exact words: Based on Uranium and thorium, we have the age of the earth set at 4.5 billion years, but that confirmation may be presumptuous because recent years have proved the radiodecay to be less contant than first appeared, as they are not immune to environmental influences. It could mean that the atomic clock reset after a global disaster—to the point where it’s in the age of man; i.e., The flood without admitting to it!

The Creationists are the most troubling of these factions. They have published many pages that purport to show evidence that the Earth is young. They require from a literal reading of the Bible according to THEIR way of reading it, that the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old. To make this work, they have to claim that radioactive dating is a fraud, and leads to conflicting results. They have expertly collected a variety of discordant age estimates, or references to conflicting results in the literature, but when you look closely you will find that their references are either 50-100 years out of date, or they have completely misrepresented the scientific evidence.

The Zircon thing, is a new reference, and instead of LISTENING TO SOMEONE TELLING YOU THAT SOMEBODY IS LYING, YOU LOOK UP THE NUMBERS FOR YOURSELF!
And notice that I threw in one token Evolutionist to point out that HE has doubts about the age of the EARTH based upon FACTS—evolutionists don’t usually like creationists to win! For as much as people like to hate on GOVERNMENT today, they sure do trust NASA a lot!


The consistency: let’s assume that all of the different types of dating systems are lined up, that they fit each other pretty well…like we assume that when this poor little earth was formed, there was no lead…and that the rates of decay are consistent THROUGHOUT TIME. That’s how you get 4.5 billion years, luv. All they did was bash, NOT show exactly WHERE these thing were wrong with the creationistic view points. I love how there’s a lack of actual cite for cite refutation—but more of a “they’re wrong, because BIG BROTHER SAID SO.” This so smacks of uneducated propaganda, it’s a wonder you posted it at all…



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
jlc163,

Again the people you are quoting have an agenda, which makes for bad science. They are religious CREATIONISTS attempting to prove their literal interpretation of the bible with bad science. I provided you with quotes from NASA, United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Energy and the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council regarding the age of the Earth. These groups are leading scientific organizations with no agenda. They pride themselves on sound science and study. If you are going to dismiss factual evidence from leading scientific organizations there is nothing more I can do for you. Continue to believe what you will. If you think you can provoke or anger me by calling me “sweetie”, “Sweetheart” and “luv” you’re wrong, I’m well above this type of immature name calling. Carry on….



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
If you think of the time that the Earth has been around as the length of a year (just scale it down, and play along with me here), humans were created December 31st, at about 11:59:50 seconds. Humans have been around almost no time whatsoever. It's been proven (Wow, Earth science had a purpose!).



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Science has proved nothing!And as corrupt as science is today, I'd be surprised to see if we ever find out anything.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhova
Science has proved nothing!And as corrupt as science is today, I'd be surprised to see if we ever find out anything.


Why do you think science is corrupt? Can you give us particulars?



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Yes, 1st of all, human nature is corrupt (which,really is enough said there).To say that all of science is correct is to say that science is infoulable, when humans control science and we are foulable.We screw up all the time, and to think that scinece is pure when humans hands are all over it is ubsurd.Archaeology for one (asside form many others).To think that you can find out everything about the past by digging 20 meters into the ground and looking for relics is ridiculous.And anyone who believes that, I hope the best for them.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Yeah, science has proven nothing. That's why you're still here. If it weren't for scientific studies, I bet about 85-95% of us would have died already, or be fatally sick. Things like vaccines, hospitals and whatnot (which are all due to science), are all wrong and useless then?



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I am talking about sciences not related to medicine dipsh1t.And medeicine has been around forever, it has not changed anythin today, with polution, cigarettes, stress, aids, and a whole slew of others, it abouts evens out.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
So you're saying that science say, in Computers has done nothing? You're working on a computer, viewing a website, probably listening to music (science of sound).

Science has done a lot.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
has this chap also forgot, 700 to 800 yrs ago old age was classed as reaching the age of 24

its only modern medicine stable supply of food for some of the world and ability to build ourselves places to survie the elements why we now live longer



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I guarantee that people will start dying at a young age, I believe it is starting already.Good health care huh, who can afford it?Science also omes up with more ways to kill then anything else, or make money, not solving the major issues of the world.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhova
I guarantee that people will start dying at a young age, I believe it is starting already.Good health care huh, who can afford it?Science also omes up with more ways to kill then anything else, or make money, not solving the major issues of the world.

No no no no nonononono.....how can I put this without offending....Up here in the Great White North we have something called Universal Health Care and its not perfect but it insures that everyone who need health care gets it. It doesn't work all the time and our health care system is underfunded but it isn't the scientist's fault its the gov't who signs the checks. Place blame where blame belongs, on a corrupt and flawed political system who would keep Universal Health Care from its people. And no science does not come up with more ways to kill than to help otherwise our overpopulation problem would be far worse. Its the Military and military scientists who have sold out who comes up with the ideas. Google Military-Industrial Complex its one of the only conspiracy theorys that I've heard of that was proven.

As for evolution being wrong... I agree that Darwinian Evolution has alot of holes in it but its an old theory and im sure there are newer ones out there that build and improve upon Darwin's model. I suggest all those who doubt Evolution to research the topic before debating its validity.


And don't read too much into the bible, I saw some documentary on the Hist chan(forget the name of show) and they pretty much said that the New Testament as it stands today is only the 1st volume in a 12 volume set. All the other holy books have also been translated and edited probably dozens of times so the original content is not there anymore. You don't even know for a fact that the bible you read today is the same one that was first written(Infact I would be really surprised if it even beared a resemblance). Im no Biblical Historian or nothing but I never put stock in anything as fragmented and contradictory as the current bible stands. And yes I have read it, I was forced to as a child....It took me a while to de-brainwash myself


Just me 2 cents worth...if its worth anything to anybody.....



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
you have all fallen to the disappointement.evolution is a lie!



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
you have all fallen to the disappointement.evolution is a lie!


Funny you should say that as there is more evidence towards a case for evolution then for any other theory. If you have a better one then I suggest that you inform the scientific community.




new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join