Wouldn't any method used to determine the age of the Earth require knowledge on how the Earth was formed? And seeing we don't know that then any speculation as to the Earth's age is just that, speculation.

We know that decay rates can be sped up. We also know that this causes a release of heat. We also know that heat is a source of energy, albeit an inefficient source (a lot of waste). We know this energy can be used or bled off (via a heat-sink).

If we use meteorites to calibrate Earth rocks that opens up new issues- What were the meteors subject to before they reached Earth?

So how can we tell how old the Earth really is?

By the genealogies in the Bible, we know it is approximately 6K years old. Some say up to 10K years, but they are compromising too much.

BTW, long time no see, welcome back JP.

Fred

Humphreys does address the heat problem in the first RATE book, in a plausible but fashion but by no means a slam dunk. I'm curious to see if he spends more time on this in his 2nd edition since this problem is often raised by both evos and creationists.

But the helium diffusion problem may also be just 6K years of decay, not rapid decay if daughter Pb was already present from the start. Whatever the case, it is very difficult for the evolutionist to explain this problem. It doesn't fit their model at all, their "explanations" seem much less credible than the creationist model, where accepting initial daughter Pb, or rapid decay seems much more reasonable to explain the helium diffusion in zircon anomoly. You ahve to admit the graph and following predictions lining up remarkably well is some very provocative stuff!



Fred

Thanks Fred, it's good to see the forum up & running again.

Some thoughts on the heat issue:

1. Heat transfer from the surface to the core (stoke the furnace so you can "set it & forget it")
2. The heat was the energy used to create the living organisms
3. The heat was the energy used to create other required compounds
4. Heat loss pre atmosphere
5. Heat loss to the atmosphere

All that is assumed is that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same in the past as they are now. The chemical makeup of the rock and it's physical characteristics tell you how it was formed. Geologists can do this because the formation of these rock types can be observed both in the field and in the lab.



The decay rates used in the dating of rocks can not be sped up by anything found in or on Earth. Potassium 40 decay, for example, is only sped up by 6% at pressures found 75 km below the surface of the earth. For the earth to be as young as YEC's claim this rate would have to sped up by factors of a 1,000 or 1,000,000.

And yes, this heat can be bled off, bled off into the atmosphere. However, this has dire consequences for life on earth. The atmosphere is a much more effecient heat sink than radiating heat into the vacuum of space, therefore heat would necessarily have to build up in the atmosphere.



They were subjected to the vacuum of space. Meteors are a record of the time when liquid rock solidified into solid masses. The earth is thought to have solidified at around the same tiime, give or take a few million years. I think this is a pretty solid assumption, if both meteors and the Earth were both present when the solar system first formed. The rocks on earth are subject to solidification and remelting due to the active nature of earth's mantle and crust. Therefore it is very difficult to find rock that was formed during the Earth's initial solidification. If memory serves, the oldest rock dated on Earth is approximately 3.5 billion years old.



As an absolute fact it is unknowable. However, given the evidence at hand, it is approximately 4.55 billion years old beyond any scientifically reasonable doubt. Science does not deal in absolute facts, only supported theories. Absolute facts are the outputs of philosophy, not science.

I had an argue with my non-christian fellow worker a couple of days ago, he claims that the Earth is about 4.6 billion year old. Of course that is a ridiculous claim, but he believes that. He stated that 'radiometric dating' proofs his argument, and he showed me couple of links that tell something about it, http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html and http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html . I'm not really scientific person, so could you help me to proof that his 'radiometric dating' is false?

Actually, I believe it's true. The earth is over 4 billions years old, but yet creation is 6000 years ago. How?

Since God can create life fully formed, and with age, what could He do with planets, and the universe? But why would He do such a thing?

1) To prove His power over time through eternity.
2) To show His glory through creation. So that when man looked at it, it would be unexplainable.

Example:
1. Let's take a earth that is only 6000 years old. Why would not life be sustainable on it? It would be to hot.
Let's take a earth that is over 4 billion years old, and guess what? Just perfect.

2. Lets take a sun that is 6000 years old. What about it that would make life not sustainable on earth? It would be unstable.
Let's take a sun that is ten billion years old. Again, just perfect.

And if he does not believe you. Ask him why all things in the universe date differently, even though they all came from the samething? Should not all things date back to the original?

So I don't think the dating methods are off, science just does not like where they lead. Because when you start asking about the different ages, they'll come up with an scientific dating excuse which actually shows more flaws in the dating process.

Ever wonder why science has to explain things through theories? This is why?
Ever wonder why science says there are no absolutes?
Ever wonder why science has turned away from looking at the odds of something happening and just say it did?

You can't find truth in something that was never designed to find it in the first place. And if someone wants to debate this, I would ask: why is there not a step, in the levels of theories, for one becoming truth?

But there isn't any "vacuum of space", and if the heat was bled off pre-atmosphere, into the cold of space, as I posted, what then?

QUOTE
If we use meteorites to calibrate Earth rocks that opens up new issues- What were the meteors subject to before they reached Earth?



But there isn't any "vacuum of space"...

BTW, the nebula hypothesis is still a hypothesis for a reason.

Hello Dan,

In a nutshell, there are three problems with radiometric dating: 1) it is based on improvable assumptions (amount of parent/daughter at start, closed system, constant decay rate), 2) blind testing is rarely used, 3) there are far more chronometers that contradict radiometric dates.

Most evidences for a young earth are really evidences against an old earth (in other words, evidence that puts an upper limit on the age of the earth that is far under the assumed age of 4.6 billion years). There are some evidences that do point to an earth under 10K years, such as the decay of earth’s magnetic field, and the recent and very compelling example of helium in zircons (see this thread).

Since this is such a big topic, I’m just going to point you to a good place to start regarding radiometric dating and the problems with it, from a Biblical creationist perspective, of course:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Fred Williams

"yet the evidence that a big bang happened is all around, does not knowing the cause discount the fact?"

What evidence? The evidence of all of this order and intelligence somehow giving proof that it all came together by chance?

"Or to put it a somewhat different perspective: If I don’t know the precise cause of a headache, yet taking aspirin cures the headache, does not knowing how aspirin works prove that headaches are impossible?"

First off, aspirins don't cure headaches. I got this from h*vind by the way. If you're driving down the highway and your oil light comes on, you have two options. A: You can fix the problem, or B: You can unplug the light. Aspirins just unplug the light, not fix the problem.

"We can see and measure the expansion, plug that into computer, wind the clock back and you get 3.5 billion years!"

Wow, so the big bang happened 3.5 billion years ago, and the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The earth was around before the big bang?

"Same sort of principle as discovering the orbital parameters of a comet, watch what is doing in the present by plotting it’s course, then just reverse the equation in time to see where it came from."

First of all, WHAT? Lol. And second, I think I already see a big assumption there even though I don't really understand what you meant. The assumption is that A: Time is a constant, B: the comet has always been moving at the same speed.

"(Note gravitation can also cause redshift, but this is not being addressed in this chapter)."

You assume that light is affected by gravity. The same assumption is in the black hole idea. Yet nobody really has any idea what light is.

"Group: Members
Age: 44
Christian: No
Creationist
Maynard, Massachusetts"

Uh, that's a bit confusing to me. You're NOT a Christian, but you're a creationist? Maybe I'll find out later what that means after I read some more of your posts John Paul.

"However, given the evidence at hand, it is approximately 4.55 billion years old beyond any scientifically reasonable doubt."

Really.... I could put up some good scientific doubts. I'd even start with your very own radiometric dating methods to show the anomalies. I think the best explanation for radiometric dating is that the daughter element was already present. However, Admin3 puts up a VERY good explanation as well.

My question about Big Bang: If it all came from one object that exploded, should it not all date back to it? And should not all bits of matter be related to the original as well? But yet each planet is different in it's make. As if they all did not come from the samething. Whay is that?

How things are:

matter= bang------sun-----------------earth
-------13 billion--10 billion-----------4.3 billion

Should it not be this instead?

Matter= bang--------sun----------------earth
------13 billion-----13 billion----------13 billion

All because it came from matter that exploded 13 billion years ago. It should all date the same. This actually shows another flaw in dating.

Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis.

Creation is not a Christian thing. I also know of IDists that are agnostic...



To Admin 3:

Rad dating depends upon when that isotope was formed. If every isotope was formed at the big-bang, you would have a point. But that is not how it is hypothesized to have happened. Stars are the ultimate alchemists. When stars go nova or supernova that is when most isotopes are formed. Then they are scattered via the subsequent explosion. (that's the naturalistic scenario). So that means the Rad decay can only start then- when the isotope forms.

Then this shows another flaw. And we really don't know how old our origins really are, or how old our planet really is if all dating of this kind relies on isotopes to form.

Example:

matter= bang------------------------------sun-------------------------earth
We really don't know when-----------How can we really tell the age?
big bang happen.

I suppose part of the problem is just how an accurate answer you want?
Much has been said of the big bang and if it happened, and much of the opposition is based on Scientist inability to give a definitive model (which is not really a problem). For example - imagine you are standing in a field with a blind fold on, a explosion occurs some distance away, you a left with no doubt about the fact that there was an explosion, you hear it, feel the pressure wave, but do you know what chemicals were use? TNT, cordite, petroleum gas etc.

The age of the universe is in part a calculation on the temperature of the cosmic background radiation and the rate of expansion, in addition to measuring the age of various types of stars, however these give lower limits to a age and are not a definitive calendar. But basically the answerer has fluctuated between 11 and 20 billion years ago depending on what hypothesis is used (although there is stronger evidence to the 13-15 mark). It still a hotly contested area of research that has change quite a few times in our lifetime.

Which could also mean a new way could be on the horizon that would show why things date older than what they are. Because one material could date less than 10,000 years old, while the other dates much older. Showing two time frames.

1) The material used was blank years old.
2) But the age marker material only dates less than 10,000 years old.

Proving two things.

1) God used aged material during creation.
2) And created less than 10,000 years ago.

Why? Why go around what God used to show what was done, and how it was done? God being the creator, and making living creatures and beings already aged and fully formed, why not also use the same method in creating physical objects?

The problem I see is that because science does not understand this, it would be thrown off as a fluke. And they would stick with the dating method that dates things much older.

"When stars go nova or supernova that is when most isotopes are formed."

And how do you suppose stars formed after the big bang? Stellar evolution, like all of the other types of evolution except MICRO, have never been observed anywhere, and are simply assumed to have happened.

To crystaleaglesprings:

Stars first formed because the design required stars. IOW stars were the intention of the designer. A naturalistic mechanism to make, spread and recycle the elements.

To Admin 3:

That is correct. We do not really know. However we can infer by investigating the evidence. And yes inferences are usually biased.

Dr. Humphreys has a solution- Starlight & Time. It has to do with event horizons and what happens to time at the event horizons compared to what happens to time many miles away. According to Hawking time slows, almost to a stop, at the EH but if one looked back, say at the Earth, time would be moving forward very rapidly. So if the universe was created from a white hole, when the EH was passing through Earth, billions of years of processes would have occurred outside of the EH.

Indeed, but I seriously doubt any new evidence will give wildly differing results from what we have already, hmmmm is 11 to 20 billion wildly different





What you are proposing is not science in the true sense of the word, the unknown remains unknown there is no need to give a definitive answer, one can postulate for sure, but if one categorically says “God did this or that” and subsequent findings later on actually find a materialist explanation, what then?

Gravity is the prime cause for stellar evolution, in a random universe when matter come together the combined affect of gravity increases exponentially. Once started it's unstoppable.

There are many stellar nurseries under observation, google on the eagle nebula the Hubbell has taken some spectacular images.

relativity re EH is for the observer, time marches on for the rest of the universe, someone passing through an EH will be crushed in very short order (even if it does not appear so).

No evidence for White holes that I’m aware off (these being philosophic solutions for the steady state model if memory serves).

“Starlight and Time” has some serious flaws, and is more to do with postulation not investigation.

"Gravity is the prime cause for stellar evolution, in a random universe when matter come together the combined affect of gravity increases exponentially. Once started it's unstoppable."

A: Big bang=everything moving away from each other, not getting closer together.
B: How would gravity alone form a star? As the gas gets closer together the heat increases as does the friction and causes it to repel away from each other.

Time does march on, albeit relatively much faster away from the EH then at it.



There isn't any evidence for the wood-factory that burned down 44 years ago in my home-town either. For those who don't understand , a white hole is a black hole in reverse. Instead of matter and energy being absorbed it is spewed out. That means once all the matter & energy are released the white hole goes bye-bye.
This is not a steady state model solution.



Any specifics? Is it more or less flawed then the current theory of evolution?

A. The early stages of the big bang are mass less (radiation only). Newtonian mathematics an objet in motion will stay that way until forced to change, the universe is still expanding.

B. Gravity is stronger than radiation! as the star evolves things balance out as the heat holds the star apart, but it’s a loosing battel, eventually gravity wins, no contest.

re "Starlight and Time"

Central to Humphries claims are that the speed of light has changed dramatically, if so how can supernova or other time dependant phenomena, be observed to be happening the same way at different distances, surly the more distant the faster they should appear to explode, yes?

Humphries also postulate we are in some sort of local black hole or gravity well, let me assure you that if this were so you would not be reading these words now. For time dilation (IAW general relativity) one must be under severe gravitational influence, and unless you are going to invoke the divine, the earth would not survive such an encounter.

For a very thorough critique of Starlight and Time see this reference LINK
In which it goes into detail over bound and unbound universes and the calculation in references, which frankly even after reading it, is out of my depth.

"A. The early stages of the big bang are mass less (radiation only). Newtonian mathematics an objet in motion will stay that way until forced to change, the universe is still expanding."

Is radiation an OBJECT?

"B. Gravity is stronger than radiation! as the star evolves things balance out as the heat holds the star apart, but it’s a loosing battel, eventually gravity wins, no contest."

? The gravity of what?

"chance:
No evidence for White holes that I’m aware off (these being philosophic solutions for the steady state model if memory serves)."

I doubt the existance of black holes AND white holes, along with antimatter. They all make major assumptions that cannot be tested. For instance, a black hole assumes that light is affected by gravity. Antimatter, black holes etc. seem to be a last resort type of way for the big bang believers to explain why all the material isn't evenly distributed throughout the universe. But again, that's just my opinion.

I don’t understand the question.



The gravitational pull of the Star.




There is strong evidence for the existence of Black Holes both observational (Cygnus X-1) and mathematical.

Light is affect by gravity, this has been measured and confirmed, absolutely no doubt about it.

Antimatter (depending on your definition) is currently under investigation, there is evidence that antimatter can be created in a cyclotron for a few milliseconds.

I am not sure what you mean by these things being required to explain why material is not evenly distributed. What do you think the consequences of a big bang should look like?

"? The gravity of what?


The gravitational pull of the Star."

I'm getting circular reasoning here. You start with a "big bang" which would be as you say, radiation only at first. So here you have radiation flowing away from a central point. I then ask you by what means a star would form, and you say gravity. I say the gravity of what? You say, of the star! Think about it.

"What do you think the consequences of a big bang should look like?"

I would think everything would be evenly distributed, and everything spinning in the same direction.

11 to 20 billion is wildly different. Try to comprehend living just a thousand years.



So science is not into searching all possibilities? Only the ones that support current views? You would have to admit that science searching and finding anything that supports God would rock the science world. And I believe is the reason they never will. They are actually afraid of finding something they can't explain. Like creating matter by sound. It expalins how God spoke things into existence. But will science apply it to that? Nope. In fact, I doubt it will be explored any further because of what they may find, that would go into a direction, that could disprove all that they have worked so hard to try and prove already.

Apologies, I missed a step (it would help a little if you become more familiar with the big bang), I assumed that you would have known that, during the expansion there is a point in time where radiation becomes matter (E=MC2 and all that).



Why would you think that? Have you ever seen an explosion where that is the norm? Just one little imperfection from the starting point will trigger unevenness.

There is also the question of scale – one could look at the universe and say “on the very very large scale, the universe is uniform, yes?

This is news to me, I'm pretty sure Humprehys' model assumes a constant "c".

BTW, I have my doubts about Humphrey's model, but for purely unscientific reasons (see 1 Cor 1:19-20).

Fred

It is and it isn’t. What the 11 to 20 is really telling us is the upper and lower limits of current knowledge (or differing hypothesise), it’s like the algebra equations they gave us at school, e.g solve X + Y where X = 4 and Y = 7 answer is 11, change the variables to X = 9 and Y = 11 and you get 20. Because we don’t know X and Y exactly, you get these widely differing results. You may think that because science can’t give is a better approximation than that, it is some how flawed, but in reality it is it’s strength that it give direction to find a better answer.




Science can investigate a supernatural claim if there is evidence to work with, science can for example prove that there is no paranormal forces acting in the areas of ‘spoon bending’ (i.e. Uri Geller), Astrology, Homoeopathy, water divining, etc. The difficulty is in categorically stating that a phenomena is an act or god or it is natural, how can one tell with certainty and how would one eliminate the natural especially if it’s a new area of research. The default position is natural, that is the only workable solution to allow science to progress.

Finding evidence of god certainly would rock the world and not just the scientific one!

Finding things science can’t explain (immediately) is to be expected, it is often said that for every new answer, ten more questions are raised.

I am sceptical of creating matter from sound, as sound travels through a medium (air, water, solid). I would need to have a link to read to understand this claim. But I think if there is merit in the claim a Nobel prize would be in order for the scientist proving such.

Oops, looks like I had an attack of foot in mouth syndrome there, the variable speed of light claim is from

I should probably clarify this. Whenever creationists use a certain theory or idea from the secular world to formulate a certain model, such as catastrophic plate tectonics or white hole cosmology (based off of the theory of relativity), I have my doubts in that particular model, in light of 1 Cor 1:19-20: “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

But let me also make it clear I believe Humphreys and Baumgardner are otherwise outstanding scientists, and have made many great contributions to the creation movement.

Fred

I'm going to start another thread on this.

"I assumed that you would have known that, during the expansion there is a point in time where radiation becomes matter (E=MC2 and all that)."

A: How could radiation become matter
B: Let's say that somehow the radiation does turn into matter, you still have the same problem, everything is getting farther apart.

Easier to imagine if you think of the situation in reverse, stat with a lump of iron, as you heat it, it starts to glow, then melt, then vaporise, then the atoms breakdown to there atomic components, then these in turn break down to radiation, E=M



On the grand scale everything is indeed still getting further apart, it only when you drop the scale that you find clumping (galaxies).

"Easier to imagine if you think of the situation in reverse, stat with a lump of iron, as you heat it, it starts to glow, then melt, then vaporise, then the atoms breakdown to there atomic components, then these in turn break down to radiation, E=M"

Yes, it is easy to imagine that because it is DECAYING, breaking apart, losing order. I find it much harder to imagine how radiation could itself ADVANCE to form matter.

"On the grand scale everything is indeed still getting further apart, it only when you drop the scale that you find clumping (galaxies)."

Are you proposing that the pieces that blew off from the big bang were therefore intact, and some were big and some were small? Ie: Earth, Sun, Jupiter, etc. Or were they trillions of tiny particles which would make sense because the thing that exploded (expanded) was 100th- the size of a proton?

No it's not decaying, it’s just Pressure/Temperature driven, the only point of the analogy was to make it easier to understand. Put cold water in a glass, see the condensation form on the outside, is a similar analogy (this time in the correct direction). E=MC2 is well proven in this area, both mathematically, observationally and experimentally, if it’s a difficult concept, do some reading on the matter there is a mountain of information available.



The second (my italics) is more correct.
P.S. I don’t see how you get “pieces that blew off from the big bang” from what I said.

Big bang (very roughly):

Expansion of radiation, temperature drops,

Matter condenses out, (atomic partials), expansion continues temp dropping,

Atoms condense out, (mostly hydrogen and helium), expansion continues temp dropping,

Gravity influences Matter, Matter influences gravity (basic general relativity), clumping on ‘small scale’ galaxies form, expansion continues temp dropping,

"Matter condenses out, (atomic partials), expansion continues temp dropping,"

Matter condenses? The analogy of water condensing on a glass doesn't work either. You're starting with water in the air, and going to water on a glass. You're talking about radiation to matter here.

That is the purpose of an analogy, to use a example that is known to demonstrate a concept that is unknown. Note that I italicised the word ‘condenses’ specifically in an effort that it should not be taken literally.

Water is changing its state from a gas (aerosol) to liquid via a reduction of heat.
Energy is changing its state from radiation to partials via a reduction of heat. The fundamental principle is Einstein’s E=MC2, i.e. energy and matter are one and the same, just in a different state.

Brian Green put it best in "The Elegant Universe" when he referred to energy as the ultimate convertable currency; energy can be turned into matter which is shown mathematically by the famous E=mc^2. This means that if an energy fluctuation is large enough it can cause an electron and positron to come into existence.

Just curious if this has been ever been observed or tested anywhere. I don't think so, but hey, maybe it has....

Energy creating mass most definately occurs. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.

Edit: If your question concerned vacuum fluctuations it is wise to familiarize yourself with the Casimir Effect.

"for example by colliding electrons and positrons."

Here we go with colliding things again. Remember everything is getting farther apart here, it all originated from a central point.

Sure the universe is expanding, but locally objects collide. I am not sure what this has to do with my statement. What I was talking about is a quantum phenomenon and, of course, deals with the very small. I gave an example of how energy created in a particle collision can create particles that did not previously exist. This is because matter and energy are just different phases of the same thing.

"Sure the universe is expanding, but locally objects collide."

I think you're missing my point. From a big bang, EVERYTHING would be flowing outward and expanding from a central point, and getting farther away from each other. There would therefore be no way that anything would collide. Even if it's all radiation, it's still getting farther away, and isn't gonna collide.

Perhaps you are assuming a perfectly smooth expansion, coupled with a perfectly smooth transition from radiation to matter. All it will take is for one atom to be under the gravitational influence of another atom and the clumping has begun. Google ‘Brownian motion’ as a possible phenomena occurring.

Even if it's not a smooth expansion, such as one part moving slower than the rest? If that's the case, you still have the same problem, while the other atoms are going slower, then the faster ones are gaining even greater distance. Besides all this, I think I'm trying to debate on unfamiliar ground, I haven't taken enough classes or read enough yet to really understand all of these concepts.

Well it is a measurable phenomena, it’s not as if there s any debate about what’s is being observed i.e. the universe is expanding.

Although the term big bang leads one to draw upon an explosion as an analogy, it’s not the best. The big bang is an expansion, the difference being there is no shock wave or the like. If one were to travel back in time to a short time after the big bang, position yourself ‘half way’ from the ‘centre’, you would not experience any motion or view particles screaming past you, as if on the way to the ‘edge’. What you would see is the universe moving away (in every direction) like the zoom feature of a video camera in reverse. As far as you would be concerned you are stationary (as is every other particle) it is space that is expanding and you are along for the ride.




Cosmology is a non intuitive yet fascinating subject, and by no means has a conclusive answer been agreed upon, in my life time the theories have swayed one way then the other several times. You live in an exciting age of discovery regarding cosmology, and you being in your teens will see much advancement in the understanding of the fabric of the universe.

"The big bang is an expansion, the difference being there is no shock wave or the like. If one were to travel back in time to a short time after the big bang, position yourself ‘half way’ from the ‘centre’, you would not experience any motion or view particles screaming past you, as if on the way to the ‘edge’. What you would see is the universe moving away (in every direction) like the zoom feature of a video camera in reverse. As far as you would be concerned you are stationary (as is every other particle) it is space that is expanding and you are along for the ride."


It seems to me that one theoretical problem with all this is, what is space? We could not exist outside of space, so in our minds, nothing does exist outside of space, not even "nothing" exists outside of space, it's simply isn't is. Think about it a while, my brain slumped in on itself,