How Old is Earth? 6,000 Yrs or 6 Billion Yrs...Or?

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


You're right they are not certain what is causing the phenomena. But the only thing they can really postulate that fits into any modern theories would either be A) solar neutrinos or B) an unknown particle emitted from the sun.

You can feel free to speculate, but those results have yet to be replicated by another lab, so the jury is still out over whether they're really seeing what they thing they're seeing or not. Until then, it's just that -- speculation.


As far as the decay rates only varying "miniscule" amounts...it doesn't matter at all how much they vary, but that they vary AT ALL. We thought decay rates were constant...we're now proven wrong.

Have you looked at the literature values for radioisotope half lives? Hardly constant. The reported variations occur based on a 33 day cycle, that of the solar core. What is being observed is not a net acceleration or deceleration of decay rates over long periods of time, just on a day to day basis during that cycle.


What kind of implication does that have?

The impact is nonexistent with regard to the long half-life radioisotopes used to date materials. The real impact is in medical use.


What if decay rates varied greatly in the past....What if the amount of solar neutrinos, or "particle X", bombarding the planet were increased 100 fold....

Decay rates haven’t been observed to change significantly since we’ve started measuring them. We can observe gamma ray frequencies and fading rates from multiple supernovae that we’ve observed at distances ranging from the hundreds of thousands of light-years to billions of light-years and those frequencies are accurately predicted by our current terrestrial decay rates. There are other methods for verifying that decay rates are stable, and the most deviation they've found is 0.000005% over the last two billion years.


No one knows for sure what exactly may have an impact on decay rates...but now that we know they are not "constant" by any means of the word...it opens the door for more research to be done to find out what exactly does[affect decay rates....]

I agree that it bears further investigation but keep in mind that, even in the wildest interpretation of the data that has actually been published, seeing significant changes to current published decay rates is unlikely.


I'm merely pointing out that once you think you got a handle on this Universe...it throws your *** a curveball...We don't know 1% of what there is to know...and even what we think we know, may be wrong...

Agreed, but you seem to stop questioning at "it throws your ass a curveball". Here are the two questions you should be asking:

1. Is the variablity something which we can easily model?

According to the authors of the paper that reported the findings, yes. It's ridiculously easily to model the changes. And they are cyclical.

2. What implications does this have to the applications of radioactive sources currently employed.

For the long half life sources used to give us radiometric dating? They have effectively zero impact.

For shorter half life sources used for medical purposes? They may have significant impact if the data in the original publication can be verified. It may very well change how nuclear medicine is conducted.




posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by jude11
 


Why!! Because the fail is strong with these ones.


There is no "fail" when it comes to an intelligent debate on a thread that has gone 10 pages with no signs of letting up.

When I posted this thread, I thought it would go a few pages but have found that the abundance of knowledge on ATS still keeps astounding me.

I am now a student in my own thread and have no sense of "Fail" with any of the posters bringing forth their knowledge...regardless of their leanings.

I take a back seat to the more knowledgeable and will just...watch, read and learn.

Thanks to all!


Peace



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
reply to post by jude11
 


The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Young Earth Creationists believe the Earth is only 6,000 years ago because they accept a literal interpretation of the Bible (mainly the Genesis account).


So it's only the YEC that believe this?

Do they also believe in a literal 7 day creation?

Thanks


2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

YEC took this to mean that each day that God worked to create everything was 1000 years. Ergo, 6000 years. However, Peter wasn't talking about creation, he was talking about how long God takes to answer prayers. He meant to say that God will answer them in His own time.

Science and God aren't mutually exclusive. Believing in one does not mean you have to forgo the other. For me, each enriches the meaning of the other. This is actually how most people are. At least the ones that find any arguments about it silly and pointless do.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Although Heat is generated in the Core and Mantle by Elemental Radioactive Decay...the Vast Majority of Heat is generated by Gravitic Compression. Also the Core Temp. is in a constant state of decline and will eventually become too cool for Earth to have either a spinning Liquid Metal Core or by lack of this spinning a Protective EM Field. Hopefully this will happen far in the future as if the Core ceases to spin...ALL LIFE ON EARTH WILL PERISH.

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I don't know how you're able to say the "vast majority" of earth's internal heat comes from gravitic compression, although I do realise that some heat comes from that source....However, the only recent experiment I know of that was conducted was done in Japan by a particle physicist at Tohoku University...in said experiment, they concluded that about HALF the earth's internal heat comes from radioactivity....Nothing is clearly the "vast majority" in this case...

I've also read in other articles that up to 80% of the Earth's internal heat stems from radioactivity, although I don't know how true this could really be. However, the fact that scientists believe Earth's internal temperature was much greater in the past because the short half-lives isotopes were not yet depleted and still producing heat makes the "80% heat from radioactivity" theory make a bit more sense.

Be more careful with your words or atleast provide something to back up your bold statements please.

A2D



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


BTW, YEC's dont typically use that passage to come up with the 6000 year figure....they more typically use the genealogical records found therein... (Adam to Jesus + years since...)

For example, Adam would be born year 1...He had his first son Seth at age 130 and died at the age of 930.
Seth lived until 1043, Enos lived until 1141, Cainan lived until 1236...so on and so forth until you get to Abraham who died in 2184.

The following link is a typical YEC's way of determining the age of the Earth...
creationwiki.org...

A2D



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

Those numbers to not jive and are HIGHLY SUSPECT. As a comparing source of data we can look at the creation of a STAR or even our own Suns creation.

When a sufficient amount of Mass is coalesced by Gravity...such as certain Star Factories in our Galaxy have shown as Large Gaseous Clouds of Hydrogen create Stars as Gravity brings large amounts of Hydrogen Gas together as a sphere and when enough Gas has been drawn together it reaches a Minimum Quantitative Threshold of Mass that when reached will cause Spontaneous Fusion of Hydrogen into Helium.

Fusion starts as the extreme Heat created by Gravitic Compression in the depths of such a Celestial Body of Hydrogen Gas. Hydrogen at the Center of Gravity will exist no longer as a Gas but as a Metal. As this chain reaction continues the entirety of this Sphere of Hydrogen burns as a Fusion Reaction and Helium is produced.

In this instance there is only Hydrogen and unlike Earth which is a Rocky Celestial Body that has large quantities of Uranium. The Gravitic Compression generates ENORMOUS TEMPS. which are necessary for Fusion. Without such High Temps. Fusion would not occur.

Thus when looking at Earth...it is easy to associate High Temps. being created at the Core due to Gravitic Compression. Although Earth does not have sufficient mass to achieve Fusion...it still has enough Mass that is the mechanism for it's existing Gravity Well to effect Earths Core thus creating Very High Temperatures.

The concept that Radioactive Decay as a SOLE or Principle reason for Earths Core Temps. is not consistent with OBVIOUS MODELS that illustrate High Temp. creation due to Gravity. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Okay I don't want to be rude here, but instead of reiterating everything you've already said, show me some sources that dispute atleast the "half" conclusion...

A2D



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 11I11
 

New information is starting to come out that's making the simulation argument less and less plausible. I'm starting to think it's on the same level as christian fundamentalism.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

Here you go....www.scientificamerican.com...

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

Here you go....www.scientificamerican.com...

Split Infinity



So, I ask you for a resource that disputes the scientific experiment and subsequent conclusion done in 2005 by a physicist in Japan...and you reply with an article from 1997...how does that work?

A2D

edit: my apologies, the experiement was concluded in 2005, but ur reference still doesnt refute anything, nor could it being written before the experiment was ever conducted
edit on 24-11-2012 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

There are MANY sources to choose from as all you have to do is Google Gravity Compression creating Heat at Earths Core....and you can pick and choose any number of sources since you do not like the one I chose.

Just using the example of the creation of Fusion within a large Celestial Body of Hydrogen...is logic enough to show that Gravity Compression is responsible for Earths Core High Temps. The Earth being struck by a Mars sized Celestial Body which was absorbed into the Planet also is a major reason.

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

There are MANY sources to choose from as all you have to do is Google Gravity Compression creating Heat at Earths Core....and you can pick and choose any number of sources since you do not like the one I chose.

Just using the example of the creation of Fusion within a large Celestial Body of Hydrogen...is logic enough to show that Gravity Compression is responsible for Earths Core High Temps. The Earth being struck by a Mars sized Celestial Body which was absorbed into the Planet also is a major reason.

Split Infinity



I'm relatively certain that none of these sources that I can choose from will dispute this relatively new experiment done in Japan....out of all the things I've googled...I haven't found one that refutes anything....only reciting the same old stuff...Science changes you know...you have to get used to that.

Again, radioactive decay alone does not account for ALL of Earth's interior heat...however, like I said before, you cannot possible use the phrase "vast majority" if what you're stating is not at all the "vast majority"...

Radioactive decay, compression, friction within the core and magma, the ever constant yet changing direction of the gravitational pull exerted by the moon, and yes, the sun, all add to the over-all heating of the earth. The friction and movement cause by the moon may be a larger factor in heating than previously considered. The pressure could compress sub-atomic particles together, thus they become radioactive. Then when the gravitational pull of the moon is from a different direction, sub-atomic particles are emitted from these heavier atoms as they try to reach a new equilibrium.....Again, all I'm asking is that you be more considerate of the words you use. You can't say "all" if it isn't "all"...you can't say "most" if it isn't "most" and you most certainly can't say "vast majority" if it isn't indeed the "vast majority". You are stating it as fact, and it is not fact.

A2D



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

OK...I can agree with that. I should have said...One of the Main Factors.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Also, I'm not sure on the math...but I think 4.56 billion years is a long time for a planet to be cooling...wouldn't it already be cooled down to the point to where the core is no longer so hot...that is unless radioactive decay wasn't a huge factor...

A2D



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

Read the Link I provided to Scientific American as it explains how the Earth holds on to it's inner Heat.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
We have kind of gotten off topic. Needless to say it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth to be only 6000 years old. This is Fantasy. There is not one piece of evidence that could even provide a suggestion that the Earths age is 6000 years old.

I find it amusing when Creationists argue this point as they do not have a leg to stand upon. Thus the debate is changed from Science Facts to GODS ability to do the impossible. Well that will not cut it.

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I did read the link...but there is no relevant math to show how quickly the earth's inner heat is dissipating...and no correlating research to show how long it would take for it to cool entirely...Just seems to me that 4.56 billion years is a long time for that primordial heat from when Earth first coalesced to still be around....

A2D



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Again, when you say 6000 years old...you must remember your frame of reference...

Genesis is an account given from God's frame of reference for creation...
What we know and understand is taken from our frame of reference for creation...

Modern physics completely allows for TIME DILATION...which is relative to FRAME OF REFERENCE....

A2D



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

Time Dilation is apparent when you are traveling away from a Gravity Well at a High Velocity. It would not account for actions and circumstances upon Earth. Split Infinity





top topics
 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join