How old is the Earth?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Haha, so you think you can use the Calculated Time Definition to argue against the Observed Time Definition? Lol, well then I don't know what to tell you. "It's not 1 meter it is 100 cms!!" lol.

What does this even mean?

P.s again I ask, where the bible and science differ do you believe that science will be wrong?

---

Haha, so you think you can use the Calculated Time Definition to argue against the Observed Time Definition? Lol, well then I don't know what to tell you. "It's not 1 meter it is 100 cms!!" lol.

What does this even mean?

P.s again I ask, where the bible and science differ do you believe that science will be wrong?

PPs. Why do we believe of an old universe?

Because that's what ALL of the evidence points to.

---

They are two different ways of looking at time. Scientists will use the observed time definition to name certain cosmological events, like "Supernova 1989A". This is observed time, the supernova happened in 1989 under the observed time defintion. Now if you were to ask them when it "really" happened- they would give you the time the event happened using calculated time. So however far away it was in light years. The days of creation are described in scripture using observed time (since Calculated Time Definition wouldn't be around until the 20th Century). So to argue against the account of Creation (which remember is using observed time) by using calculated time is kind of like two ships missing one another at night. Under the observed time definition light propagates an-isotropically, but the same beams of light move isotropically under the calculated definition of time. Since velocity has a time component, if you change the defintion of that time component you change the manner in whcih the velocity is observed without really changing the actual velocity. It's kind of like measuring something in meters per hour rather than meters per second. So when everyone tries and throw the speed of light in a vaccum at me and all that, I am well aware of that and agree with that. However, that is using the other time definition so that was not even what I was arguing for. So the cosmos could have all been created billions of years ago using calculated time, but using observed time from Earth they would have all appeared on the fourth day of Creation. Does that help any?

As to when science contradicts scripture, kind of the same thing. By definition science can't really "disprove" scripture because science deals with non-absolutes while scripture makes absolute claims. I do not believe you can disprove an absolute with a non-absolute. It also kind of depends on the event in scripture. Science has shown that virgins do not give birth (again, not an absolute but fairly close right?). Well scripture deals with this as a miraculous event, so it is not claiming that it happened by natural means. So to try and disprove this portion of scripture with science would be inappropriate. The creation of the Earth and Cosmos is detailed as a supernatural event in scripture- so I tend not to try and disprove this with natural means. However, the age of the Earth since creation would be natural so that is one area science can weigh in on. So that is why I like discussing it. Does that help?

---

You know, my reply to this post was going to be much different, until I realized the OP claims to study science. So, my question has changed to: How exactly do you claim to be knowledgeable about how science works, yet be so completely and utterly ignorant of how the process of determining scientific outcomes works?

When you claim you have a degree in "Science" do you mean "Christian Science" by chance?

I just find it amazing that 9th graders have a better concept of how scientists work than you do, while claiming that all the scientists today are completely and utterly wrong, while also attacking paleontologists describing them as bumbling buffoons who most likely had a hard time piecing together jigsaw puzzles as a child. While that's not literally what you said, you pretty much could have said that, coming from the descriptions you've given.

Either way, I enjoy it when you post because I'm fond of your avatar. So, keep spouting your ignorance, I don't mind. =P

Nope, got my degree from a secular university. I actually had the highest grade in my Advanced Evolutionary Biology course (taught by an Atheist), so I don't know if that is a poor reflection on the other non-creationists in the class or what, but it's true.

If you could please point out where my understanding of Science is off, that would be great. Please give a source too, so I can see who you listen to when defining science. Though I did notice that you made a slight appeal to consensus in your post. This may show a little bit of your lack of scientific knowledge, or maybe you just didn't mean to do it. The majority of scientists not only could be wrong, but are often wrong- just look at the history of science. So to jump on me for believing this is the case today is an error I believe. Thanks for the avatar compliment though!

---

You are a disgrace even to Christianity.

I am giving you the opportunity to change that assertion into an argument, here is your chance.

Please tell us all how you define "disgrace".
Since you do not actually know me, I am assuming you mean my actions are a disgrace to Christianity. So next please tell us all how you understand Christianity. Next tell us all how you understand my actions. Next tell us all how you believe these actions are a disgrace to Christianity. There! Now is your chance.

---

---

Well if the assumptions that go into the dating method on Earth can be shown to be erroneous (which I believe they have numerous times), then there is no reason to make these same erroneous assumptions about matter in space. That would be an exercise in futility. I don't think you under stood what I meant by a magnitude of 8. It's not just 8 times faster, it's a base 10 logarithmic scale so it would be 10^8 times faster. Which of course is more than enough to account for the difference in dates. I refuse to believe secular Scientists have really looked very hard into this matter. It's like the fact that none of them ever looked for a measurable C14/C12 ratio in diamonds because there presuppositions told them it would be impossible for there to be any because diamonds are too old. When the Creation guys insisted they do it, what do they find? Measurable amounts of the ratio in diamonds!

It doesn't matter what you mean by a magnitude of eight.
The fact of the matter is that radiometric dating is solid and accurate for the following reasons:
1) The rate is constant
- the reason it has neven shown to be not constant is because it would show up in a sample at any point in time given the number of samples collected over the years.
2) Violating the rate of decay violates the fundemental laws of physics
- every time you've attempted to show this to not be the case, the incident is anecdotal and have been proven wrong by actual people doing actual science and further speeding up the decay rates of all radioactive material on the planet at the rates you suggest would melt the planet if the earth's radioactive materials decayed in the manner and speed you describe - not to mention what would happen to the sun and every star in the universe. As that video of mine proved beyond a reasonable doubt, every creationist theory seems to somehow result in the universe never having possibly existed.
3) As orogenicman pointed out, your one instance was proven false and there are no others.
- The things that actually throw off decay rates that trick scientists to believing in something being a different age are usually forces that make the necessary samples look younger, not older.
4) Even if something could throw off decay rates to make samples look older,
- then the change should not look uniform throughout the entire inner solar system. The moon has no geologic forces (except moon quakes caused by tidal forces with the earth) or chemicals that can change the measurement of the age of the rocks and the same especially holds true for asteroids and the martian rocks we've collected. They're all in sychronization with one another and the oldest rocks on earth, mars, and every place else all show up at being billions of years old - not millenia.

And frankly, I'd rather believe in a natural force that radiates reliably like clockwork so many times over the solar system than a ancient book written in the bronze age before they even knew that the Earth wasn't surrounded by a crystal sphere, wasn't flat, and that the sun generates light and that it's not a seporate thing from the sun and the stars (and so on). The former is science. The latter is fantasy.

You might prefer to refuse to believe in the entire scientific community and all the work they've done in the centuries, but science has produced the food, machinery, and toys we all enjoy in this modern world and we can look at space rocks precisely because of the scientific 'world view'.
Creationism is an obstruction to science at best and destructive to science at worst. It's not science and it's easily proven false by simply looking at the way things are instead of making up answers about the universe.

EDIT: By the way, since the earth is 4.54 x 10^9 years old, being wrong by a factor of 10^8 means all that radiation decayed in a matter of 45.4 years. That amount of energy, as you might guess, would annihilate the planet. The universe nonwithstanding.

---

Well actually that was not the only case, it's observed quite often. He did not refute that claim either because the article he cited pre-dated the research I cited. Kind of hard to refute research that has happened yet.

Well I said "up to" a magnitude of 8, so your 45 year thing doesn't mean much.

You still haven't addressed the issue that if all these rates are constant then how come the same sample gives different ages when different radiometric dating methods are used on it? I would expect them all to be the same if the rates have been constant. So do you believe all natural rates have been constant? Are you a true uniformitarian? I can guarantee you are going to start using the same arguments as I do when I show that using a lot of other rates we can extrapolate young ages for the Earth. "Oh those rates have changed but my rates have not". What happens when Carbon 14 dates and radiometric dates conflict? Which one do you choose then?

Actually the Bible never says the Earth is flat, that's often claimed by people who don't know how to conduct proper exegesis.