Pages:
Author

Topic: How old is earth - page 11. (Read 12902 times)

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 15, 2016, 12:39:58 PM
#70
^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.


You are confused  Smiley

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
July 15, 2016, 12:29:53 PM
#69
^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.


You are confused  Smiley

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 15, 2016, 12:27:52 PM
#68
Major flaws in standard scientific dating of the age of the earth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth:
Quote
...

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296)

...

There are many links within the text, at the website (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), to back up what is said there.

Cool
Too bad your source of information is as biased as your perspective in life. Lol.
Seeing the name of the site will give you an idea that it's a site for theist people looking for argument that they can use in scientific datas.

If you knew much of anything about science, you would see that the old-age-earth is a far more biased picture. Scientist want to promote old-age-earth simply to remove the thinking of people from the fact that God exists. It's a plan to enslave the people for monetary purposes, so that the scientists can gain wealth... and prestige, I might add.

Looking at the links in the site shows us the fact that the proofs for old-age-earth are flawed through and through.

Cool
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
narrowpathnetwork.com
July 15, 2016, 12:20:11 PM
#67
^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.


You are confused  Smiley

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
July 15, 2016, 10:44:54 AM
#66
Major flaws in standard scientific dating of the age of the earth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth:
Quote
...

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296)

...

There are many links within the text, at the website (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), to back up what is said there.

Cool
Too bad your source of information is as biased as your perspective in life. Lol.
Seeing the name of the site will give you an idea that it's a site for theist people looking for argument that they can use in scientific datas.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 15, 2016, 09:48:10 AM
#65
^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.


They have links from all over the place to back up what they say, Fluffer.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
July 15, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
#64
^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 15, 2016, 09:10:18 AM
#63
Major flaws in standard scientific dating of the age of the earth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth:
Quote
...

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296)

...

There are many links within the text, at the website (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), to back up what is said there.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
July 14, 2016, 11:23:35 PM
#62
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 14, 2016, 07:44:20 PM
#61
Earth is old 4.5 billion years just believe what scients say and don't listed God books because that isn't true.That thint from Bible are just scam informations from some crazy brain in crazy history.

Listen to scientists when they tell you how old the earth is. Why? Because essentially they say that they do not know.

The scientists that have studied the question will tell you right out that they "think" that the earth is this or that old. But they will, also, tell you that they don't really know. So, listen to them.

The scientists who have NOT studied the question will tell you that they were listening to the scientists who DID study the question, and that they interpreted the answers this way or that. But they, themselves, don't really know how old the earth is.

Then there's the media, which will tell you anything that they think you want to hear, as long as it makes some money for them.

So, listen to the scientists, because they telly us that they don't know how old the earth is.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
July 14, 2016, 03:29:46 PM
#60
newbie
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
July 14, 2016, 02:53:49 PM
#59
Earth is old 4.5 billion years just believe what scients say and don't listed God books because that isn't true.That thint from Bible are just scam informations from some crazy brain in crazy history.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 14, 2016, 02:45:53 PM
#58
how do they even calculate something like this?

Typically, I ask google... like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+scientists+calculate+the+age+of+earth

Google responds... like this:

How is Earth's Age Calculated?
Quote
The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

How Do Scientists Measure Earth Age?
Quote
Generally speaking, scientists have developed four different methods of determining the age of the earth. By using these methods, or a combination of them, the age of geological formations created by past events and even the fossilized bones of prehistoric animals can be determined.

Based on the research done by scientists, the Geologic Column, a graph that illustrates earth age, was developed. The Column, with its names for the epochs and eras of time, illustrates what scientists think was taking place in earth history. A small version of the Geologic Column is pictured at the right.

Let's take a brief look at each of these methods.

The three primary methods are:

    Radiation Measurement
    Stratigraphic Superposition
    The Fossil Record




None of this info is conclusive. None of it is necessarily anywhere near accurate. When you examine alternatives, you will see the inconclusive nature of all this. You have your choice... pick and choose what you want to believe. But know that it is inconclusive, and that you may easily be wrong.

If you study such things, as scientists do... it is 100% conclusive

One example...

Creationists, such as Ken Ham, claim that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time (he just wasted $100,000,000 building a replica Noah's Ark with dinosaurs)

Scientists on the other hand, have actually dug into the ground and found these bones/fossils... scientists have found that humans and dinosaur bones are never found together... they are in fact separated by vast amounts of dirt (representing time)...

There are no dinosaur bones found above the K-T boundary... and there are exactly zero human bones found below the K-T boundary

The K-T boundary is a visible layer of dirt formed around 65million years ago, found all around the earth, containing high concentrations of iridium, likely from an asteroid impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_boundary

This is how science works...


Now, how does your religion determine this is all wrong?  "God" said so?  Do you have evidence of dinosaur and human bones together?  Do you even look?

I could go outside my house and not find any dinosaur or human bones at all. This is how science works.

Look at the various strata that supposedly are from different ages in time... like who knows how many thousands of years apart. Then look at the tree fossils that cross all the stratum.

And look at the fossil record. Tons and loads and a gigantic percent of the fossils were formed with their most delicate parts intricately shown in the fossil. How long does it take to form a fossil? Thousands of years? Hasn't anybody heard of decay?

Or look at that place in Australia where a guy fell into a mine shaft, and less than 100 years later he has been fossilized.

Or look at the many places around the world where gigantic, hundred thousand year old stalactites and a stalagmites have formed in less than 100 years.

This is science... self-contradictory, fake, fiction, and unknown for certain where it is attempting to be serious.

And if machines work, it isn't the scientists that made them work. It is the engineers.

Most of science has become a BS game... especially where dating the earth is concerned.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
July 14, 2016, 12:40:29 PM
#57
how do they even calculate something like this?

Typically, I ask google... like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+scientists+calculate+the+age+of+earth

Google responds... like this:

How is Earth's Age Calculated?
Quote
The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

How Do Scientists Measure Earth Age?
Quote
Generally speaking, scientists have developed four different methods of determining the age of the earth. By using these methods, or a combination of them, the age of geological formations created by past events and even the fossilized bones of prehistoric animals can be determined.

Based on the research done by scientists, the Geologic Column, a graph that illustrates earth age, was developed. The Column, with its names for the epochs and eras of time, illustrates what scientists think was taking place in earth history. A small version of the Geologic Column is pictured at the right.

Let's take a brief look at each of these methods.

The three primary methods are:

    Radiation Measurement
    Stratigraphic Superposition
    The Fossil Record




None of this info is conclusive. None of it is necessarily anywhere near accurate. When you examine alternatives, you will see the inconclusive nature of all this. You have your choice... pick and choose what you want to believe. But know that it is inconclusive, and that you may easily be wrong.

If you study such things, as scientists do... it is 100% conclusive

One example...

Creationists, such as Ken Ham, claim that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time (he just wasted $100,000,000 building a replica Noah's Ark with dinosaurs)

Scientists on the other hand, have actually dug into the ground and found these bones/fossils... scientists have found that humans and dinosaur bones are never found together... they are in fact separated by vast amounts of dirt (representing time)...

There are no dinosaur bones found above the K-T boundary... and there are exactly zero human bones found below the K-T boundary

The K-T boundary is a visible layer of dirt formed around 65million years ago, found all around the earth, containing high concentrations of iridium, likely from an asteroid impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_boundary

This is how science works...


Now, how does your religion determine this is all wrong?  "God" said so?  Do you have evidence of dinosaur and human bones together?  Do you even look?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 14, 2016, 11:50:18 AM
#56
how do they even calculate something like this?

Typically, I ask google... like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+scientists+calculate+the+age+of+earth

Google responds... like this:

How is Earth's Age Calculated?
Quote
The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

How Do Scientists Measure Earth Age?
Quote
Generally speaking, scientists have developed four different methods of determining the age of the earth. By using these methods, or a combination of them, the age of geological formations created by past events and even the fossilized bones of prehistoric animals can be determined.

Based on the research done by scientists, the Geologic Column, a graph that illustrates earth age, was developed. The Column, with its names for the epochs and eras of time, illustrates what scientists think was taking place in earth history. A small version of the Geologic Column is pictured at the right.

Let's take a brief look at each of these methods.

The three primary methods are:

    Radiation Measurement
    Stratigraphic Superposition
    The Fossil Record




None of this info is conclusive. None of it is necessarily anywhere near accurate. When you examine alternatives, you will see the inconclusive nature of all this. You have your choice... pick and choose what you want to believe. But know that it is inconclusive, and that you may easily be wrong.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1414
Merit: 505
Backed.Finance
July 14, 2016, 11:43:41 AM
#55
just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QfjrMcXPHM ( indonesian sub but english dub )
Earth was being created on 4,500,000,000 years ago and all unverse was being created 14,500,000,000 years ago, I was so amaze by this fact

Its interesting to know that.If the universe created 14.5 billions years ago then theres a biggest possibility that other civilization is more advanced than us.But so far this is yet to be discovered as we dont have contact yet. Nice info, thanks.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
July 14, 2016, 11:34:51 AM
#54
how do they even calculate something like this?

Typically, I ask google... like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+scientists+calculate+the+age+of+earth

Google responds... like this:

How is Earth's Age Calculated?
Quote
The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

How Do Scientists Measure Earth Age?
Quote
Generally speaking, scientists have developed four different methods of determining the age of the earth. By using these methods, or a combination of them, the age of geological formations created by past events and even the fossilized bones of prehistoric animals can be determined.

Based on the research done by scientists, the Geologic Column, a graph that illustrates earth age, was developed. The Column, with its names for the epochs and eras of time, illustrates what scientists think was taking place in earth history. A small version of the Geologic Column is pictured at the right.

Let's take a brief look at each of these methods.

The three primary methods are:

    Radiation Measurement
    Stratigraphic Superposition
    The Fossil Record



newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
July 14, 2016, 11:18:53 AM
#53
how do they even calculate something like this?
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
July 14, 2016, 11:16:45 AM
#52
being Muslim i can give you answer in Islamic point of view. According o Islam it is only Allah who know that how old is the earth. but it is also said that the earth is present from the time if the earth is full of grain and a bird comes once in a year and eat one a sing one so how much time will the bird take to eat all the grain so it is said that earth is so old.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 14, 2016, 08:02:00 AM
#51
just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QfjrMcXPHM ( indonesian sub but english dub )
Earth was being created on 4,500,000,000 years ago and all unverse was being created 14,500,000,000 years ago, I was so amaze by this fact
Well I agree with you man since you have a source I also have my own source. According to an earth science book used by grade 11 here in the Philippines. Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. This estimate is based on the age of meteorites found on earth I mean in the meteorites is the oldest ones found here on earth.

Watch this.

The Earth is 4.5 million years old.

The Earth is 100,000 years old.

The Earth is 6,000 years old.

The Earth is 15 minutes old.

Do I have to prove it?

Cool
Pages:
Jump to: