How old is the Earth?

[orogenicman]

Hahahaha. I am seriously starting to worry about you. My whole point of the "Earth's Circumfrence" argument was to point out how small of an observable area you would have compared to the whole Earth's Circumfrence when compared to 100 years to 4.5 billion years. This shows how it would be impossible to conclude how far around the Earth is if you were only able to observe a tiny section of the Earth, (remember observing the sun is violating my initial premise since it is outside of your observable area). Then you go off on some crazy tangent about how you can actually measure the Earth's circumfrence using a yardstick. However, this was completely dishonest because the experiment actually uses the sun, not just a yardstick. It also uses loads of previous tested knowledge about the Earth's shape and it's relationship to the sun. This knowledge could not have been gathered by observing your tiny allowed area, so it can then in turn not be used in the experiment. So this experiment has nothing to do with my original point. You are given a linear image of 3.5 inches of the Earth's surface. Can you use this image, and only this image to tell me how big the Earth is? No of course you can't. To think, you get on me for deviating from the discussion at hand, pullease.

I can tell from your argument that your grasp of Earth science leaves a lot to be desired. And this is disconcerting considering that you claim to work for the government as an environmental scientist. The yardstick is the tool used to make the calculation. The sun is needed to get the angle to make the calculation. It isn't a tool. It is a natural phenomenon from which measurements are made. This calculation has been done for at least a couple of thousand of years. You're splitting hairs. Secondly, as an environmental scienctist, I am sure you are familiar with the phrase 'representative sample'. The fact is that you don't need a 27,000 mile long yardstick to measure the Earth's circumference. I would think that any teacher of mathematics would understand this basic trigonomic concept. Obviously that is not true in your case.

---

---

Not really what I am saying. Decay rates have changed, we know this because different isochronic methods of dating yield different dates for the same rock. If decay rates were always constant each isochron should yield the same age, they don't. The biggest factor that would skew radiometric dating would be the presence of daughter elements at the time of Creation. This is why radiometric dating cannot be used to "disprove" a young Earth, it assumes something that would not be true if the Earth was young. Try and date a person (using their height and weight) using the same assumptions radio-metric dating uses and I guarantee your conclusion will be way off. Thanks for being civil though, makes thing way more fun I think.

No, decay rates have not changed. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have. Thousands of laboratories the world over use radioactive dating of material samples, and have done so for decades with huge success. If you have proof that they are wasting their time and money, you should publish your peer reviewed paper pronto, so these labs won't wate their money on bogus science. Good luck with that.

---

I noticed you just made an assertion and didn't address my argument. Typical. If decay rates are constant then why do different isocrons yield different ages on the same rock? Is that rock really three different ages at the same time? Geologists are well aware of this problem, they just throw out the younger ages and keep the oldest one becuase it fits their pre-conceived ideas. Why do you think you have to identify which layer of strata a sample was collected from when you send it to the lab? So they can throw out the dates that don't match! Simple stuff.

---

Not really what I am saying. Decay rates have changed, we know this because different isochronic methods of dating yield different dates for the same rock.

Archilies heel fallacy, you claim knowledge of examples that are contrary to the expected outcome but provide no examples. What have you got in your bag of tricks here, a silly example about a snail dating to 25,000 years or other examples of creationist mucking of the actual results?

Decay rates have not changed, and the vast majority of experiments have confirmed this. Can you explain why the vast majority of results should be ignored?

Different isochrons yielding different ages for the same rock is a common occurance. The final age is determined by which layer of Strata the sample was found in. This is basic basic stuff here. Decay rates have changed, everyone knows that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

---

I know what I am doing.

We know what you are doing as well, and it is dishonest, to say the least. You claim to be a scientist, and yet fail to recognize one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method - the burden of proof. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary biologists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts, whereas all creationists have to offer in rebuttal is one poorly provenienced bronze age book. Sorry, but the Bible is not a science book, and so anyone trying to use it as such should consider therapy to cure them of their delusions. Finally, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

Whew! Well it's a good thing this is not the Scientfic Community (obviously) huh? lol. If I were writing a research paper on the topic you are right, however I am not. I am asking for your guys' reasons for believing in an Old-Earth. I was very clear in this thread. If you cannot handle that, then I suggest you not post in this thread, since that is the topic at hand. One major problem with your post though, Science does not deal with majority, it is not a majority rules community and anyone who tells you otherwise is perverting the discipline. I think your post is more relevant in a formal debate than it is in Science or this Discussion Board. Good read though.

Yes it is a very good thing this is not the scientific community, because if it were, you'd have been laughed out of the room. You are asking us to prove to you what is accepted science the world over, and my suggestion to you is to go back to school, or at least ask for a refund on your tuition because, damn, you got ripped off. My post is relevant in any debate on matters of science. You don't get to set the theory of gravity aside because it suits your argument to do so, and you don't get to make shit up because accepted science doesn't fit your narrow world view. Peer review is a vital part of conducting scientific research. If your peers don't accept your findings, you are but a lone wolf howling in the night whether or not your findings are correct.

---

I know the flood comes into the answer for this one, Noah took 2 of every animal as ordered by God but for some reason he didn't take the Dinosaurs .... typical human, can't follow Gods instructions to the letter even when it comes to genocide. Still, would have been difficult to get those Tyrannosaurs and Brontosauruses on the Ark. And while you are at it, you can also tell us how there was a land bridge between Asia and Australia so all the Kangaroos and Koalas could migrate to Australia after the flood. And why did most marsupials decide they all wanted to live in Australia? Why don't we find Kangaroos and other Australian animals scattered between the middle east and Australia?

LOL, would have been harder than you think to get Brontosaurus on the Ark considering Brontosaurus never existed. It's pretty common knowledge that the Brontosaurus was a hybridization of fossils from other dinosaurs, having an apatosaurus body with a camarasaurus head. I thought you guys were supposed to be the Dinosaur experts? lol.

---

---

can you conclude that radio-metric decay has always been constant by observing to be constant for 100 years?

The earth circumferance analogy was certainly perfect for the point I was attempting to make.
In any case, sure, we can certainly move back to radiometric dating.

Yes, it can, in fact, be proven to be consistent and for a number of reasons:

First of all, we would have seen it given all of the radiometric dating among all of the samples taken among all of the radioactive elements used for this purpose, to which we have derieved samples from all over the world and a number from outside of Earth's atmosphere, including the Moon, Mars, and various extraterrestrial rocks that have crashed into the planet over the years.
The thing is - they all date accurately in contrast to one another and not one of them has shown a margin of error that would make dating techniques unviable and not one of them has a different decay rate between materials of the same radioactive element anywhere.

As such, despite variables that allow us to view samples from wildly different places all around the solar system, radiometric dating has never proven to be inconsistent and because of this, it is highly unlikely that it has been inconsistent at another point in time.

This is analagous to how we can tell that boys and girls grow up at different rates at different times to a different average height without necessarily following a sample over the course of their entire lifetimes. The same is true for radiometric dating samples.

Second of all, different radiometric isotopes decay at different rates. There are no known methods of changing all of them simultaneously under the same process.

Third of all, a variable decay rate would violate numerous proven fundemental aspects of quantum mechanics (I believe the strong force was mentioned by another person you dismissed earlier in this or the other thread).

As such, for these reasons and more, radiometric dating is highly precise and consistent, despite attempts by the Curies and others to prove otherwise.

---

I disagree. There are numerous lines of evidence that show the Earth has experienced at lesat one period of accelerated radiometric decay- one such example is examining helium diffusion out of zircons from the Precambrian granite in Fenton Hills, New Mexico. Of course periods of accelerlated radiometric decay would lead to greatly inflated age estimates. Most people do not realize that it would take a very small altering of the nuclear or strong forces in order to cause an increase in the amount of alpha decay by a magnitude of up to 8.

The helium difusion argument has been refuted:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html