The Bible is not always Theology. Some people prefer to read the Bible rather than "do" Theology.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
He carefully picked out material from the recent eruption.
Apparently, he told them the age, and as they note in their literature, they said that their method wouldn't work on something that recent. He told them he wanted it done anyway.
The material had formed in the crater after the explosion that blew away the side of the mountain.
Some can, like the method that accurately dated the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius that buried Pompeii. Austin chose one that he was very sure could not date the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.
Okay. So what age did they give him?
Picture sticking a candy thermometer into a vat of molten metal. What would be the temp you would get?
Right. The highest number that the thermometer could register.
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
When you start with the wrong assumptions, you get the wrong conclusions. *
As Hebrew scholars at major universities will tell you, the Biblical text does not allow for precambrian days.*
*
Barbarian said:
Yes! The present is not the key to the past. The Biblical creationist model is that the continents formed after Noahs flood. How does that effect yoir calculations?*
As said.... we look at the same evidencea but have different beliefs about the past.*
*
Barbarian said:
No.... its how you interpret the data. If you believe in billions of years you intetpret in that (dim) light. *If we interpret data in the light of Gods Word we see that our universe is young and consistent with the Bible.
Your 3 billion year thing. Didn't BJ say 1 billion earlier? Astrophysist Jason Lisle says less than 1.5 billion.
Or as this article from Creation ministries says...the highest allowable evolutionary age 1.3 billion years...which is a huge problem for evolutionists.
"The recession rate dr/dt of the moon is
where r is the semimajor axis of the moon’s orbit about the earth, t is time, and k is a proportionality constant.32-34*When t = 0, r = r0.
To compute the moon’s recession time to its present orbit, we first integrate equation (1). Over the time interval 0 to t, the moon’s distance from the earth increases from the Roche limit r0*to its present orbit at distance r:
in which t is the maximum age of the earth-moon system. The present value of r is 3.844 x 108*m. For an object orbiting a planet, the Roche limit r0*is
where R is the radius of the central body (the earth in this case); ρp*is the density of the central body; and ρm*is the density of the orbiting body, in this case the moon.35*With R = 6.3781 x 106*m for the earth; ρp*= 5515 kg/m3; and ρm*= 3340 kg/m3, we find that r0= 1.84 x 107*m. This is less than 5% of the moon’s current orbital radius.
From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance r, and the current recession rate. The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 ± 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 ± 0.6) x 10–2*m/yr.36–38Therefore, k = 1.42 x 1050*m7/yr. With this value for k, the right hand side of equation 1 equals the present recession rate dr/dt, when r = the moon’s current orbital radius.
From equation (2), the time for the moon to recede from r0*to r is 1.3 Ga. Without introducing tidal parameters, to be discussed below, this is the moon’s*highest allowableevolutionary age, similar to DeYoung’s estimate.39*This is a serious challenge to the belief that the moon is 4.6 Ga old.40*
http://creation.mobi/the-moons-recession-and-age
*There are different interpretations of the data. The best interpretation fits the Biblical model that God placed the moon at the proper distance allowing life in the oceans and our night light.*
I don't know that they were measuring using a thermometer.
Barbarian, regarding the necessity of using the correct instrument:
Picture sticking a candy thermometer into a vat of molten metal. What would be the temp you would get?
Right. The highest number that the thermometer could register.
I don't know how to explain reality any simpler than that. If you chose the wrong method, you get an absurd result.
Picture sticking a candy thermometer into a vat of molten metal. What would be the temp you would get?
Right. The highest number that the thermometer could register.
I don't know how to explain reality any simpler than that. If you chose the wrong method, you get an absurd result.
I am telling you than in regard to my memory pertaining to evolution I have shared almost all I know. But I know much about science from science courses taken over the course of my life culminating in engineering. I have the ability to think critically, so I do not accept (macro) evolution.
I guess I'm saying I'm asking for the detail of this dating, to understand what you are saying.
O.K. Potassium-40 has a half-life of about 1.25 billion years. So a recent eruption isn't datable by the method. It's why Austin chose that method.
I have two problems with this, understanding how this half-life was determined and what it means for the situation, and how a recent eruption can be dated.
Years ago I had a similar conversation with another creationist who insisted that it was a matter of how one interprets the evidence. So I asked him to imagine a scenario in which he and I got together to agree on some ground rules. I proposed that we would jointly review and agree on the mathematics that would be necessary in the effort we would undertake. Then we would jointly agree on a methodology for analyzing the data we measured. (In that case, I was speaking of doing controlled studies of rates of erosion, with the goal of looking in nature and then seeing if we could do dating by the degree of erosion we actually found.) The creationist had no objections. But then I asked what he would do when, if using the agreed-to method of interpreting what we found, we encountered strata that was thusly found to be millions of years old. His response, from which he would not budge, was “That wouldn’t happen.” “Never happen.”, “Can’t happen.”
Interpretation of evidence is not the plastic “pick the method that is guaranteed to fit your pre-conceived answer” that 6days needs it to be.
Go on then, give us the highlights of the 'critical thinking' you have done that leads you to reject science in a completely arbitrary way and instead celebrate your own ignorance.
Why would any intelligent person broadcast THAT to the online world?
This 'critical thinking' wouldn't involve reading creationist websites or speaking with pastors or reading Genesis, would it? That's not critical thinking.
Stuart
I haven't rejected science, that is what you are failing to realize.
Critical thinking is an ability, not a set of information that can be provided.
Observation of decay rates by physicists.
That means that it takes 1,250,000,000 years for half of the potassium-40 to convert to Argon. So, in a few dozen years, practically none of it, meaning that we can't measure the amount, because it's so small.
Argon/Argon dating depend on a different process, and it's been verified that it can go down to about 2000 years.
And C-14, which is almost never used for fossils because it degrades so fast that it quickly goes down to background levels, can be used, if it involves formerly living tissue, which didn't get a significant part of its carbon from geologic sources, and hadn't been contaminated by seepage.
This is not clear. How long was the observation and what was it that was being observed? How is this information useful in measuring the age of a thing?
I believe you are saying that one element can become another element? How is that useful? In what way is that useful?
That is when Jesus was alive. I'm not sure how to verify your statement here, however. Certainly what is being measured did not come into existence 2,000 years ago? Can you explain?
I am unsure of what you say here. Are you saying only the age of formerly living tissue can be found? What is this type of material called? I don't know if this would be called organic material or what it would be called.
Barbarian, regarding how we can measure half-lives:
Observation of decay rates by physicists.
Depends on the isotope. I suppose you'd have to get enough clicks to get a mathematically valid sample. The breakdown of these isotopes produces measurable amounts of radiation that can be quantified.
Think about it this way; we know that the vast majority of isotopes have very, very constant decay rates under conditions found on earth. So it's like this vehicle moving at a constant rate, from one city to another. How long would you have to measure it's speed to figure out how long it would take to get halfway there?
So let's say rock with K-40 melts and then hardens again. The argon, being a gas, quickly leaves molten rock, so when it hardens, the clock is set to 0. Then, as the potassium decays, more and more of the argon accumulates in the rock. The ratio of potassium and argon tells you how long it's been since the rock solidified.
Learn about it here:
http://www.sciencecourseware.com/virtualdating/
Barbarian observes:
That means that it takes 1,250,000,000 years for half of the potassium-40 to convert to Argon. So, in a few dozen years, practically none of it, meaning that we can't measure the amount, because it's so small.
Yes, that's what decay is.
How much has decayed to Argon can tell us how old the rock is.
Barbarian observes:
Argon/Argon dating depend on a different process, and it's been verified that it can go down to about 2000 years.
Ah, I see the confusion. It's not when the matter was created, it's when the rock became solidified.
Barbarian observes:
And C-14, which is almost never used for fossils because it degrades so fast that it quickly goes down to background levels, can be used, if it involves formerly living tissue, which didn't get a significant part of its carbon from geologic sources, and hadn't been contaminated by seepage.
With C-14 dating, yes. You see, nitrogen in the atmosphere is produced by radiation, mostly in the high atmosphere from cosmic rays. The carbon immediately starts decaying, so there's a dynamic equilibrium of C-14 in the atmosphere. So plants take up carbon, including C-14, and when they die, they stop accumulating the carbon and it begins to decay away. Obviously, animals eating plants or animals eating animals that ate plants, will also be testable by this process.
There are some pitfalls. Nitrogen in the ground can be converted to C-14 by radiation there. Animals that get most of their carbon from geologic sources, like mollusks or animals eating them, will give false and very old ages.
And there's contamination to think about, too.
Look at the site I linked for you; it's entertaining and you'll learn a lot from it.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific?
Observation of decay rates by physicists.
Depends on the isotope. I suppose you'd have to get enough clicks to get a mathematically valid sample. The breakdown of these isotopes produces measurable amounts of radiation that can be quantified.
Think about it this way; we know that the vast majority of isotopes have very, very constant decay rates under conditions found on earth. So it's like this vehicle moving at a constant rate, from one city to another. How long would you have to measure it's speed to figure out how long it would take to get halfway there?
So let's say rock with K-40 melts and then hardens again. The argon, being a gas, quickly leaves molten rock, so when it hardens, the clock is set to 0. Then, as the potassium decays, more and more of the argon accumulates in the rock. The ratio of potassium and argon tells you how long it's been since the rock solidified.
Learn about it here:
http://www.sciencecourseware.com/virtualdating/
Barbarian observes:
That means that it takes 1,250,000,000 years for half of the potassium-40 to convert to Argon. So, in a few dozen years, practically none of it, meaning that we can't measure the amount, because it's so small.
Yes, that's what decay is.
How much has decayed to Argon can tell us how old the rock is.
Barbarian observes:
Argon/Argon dating depend on a different process, and it's been verified that it can go down to about 2000 years.
Ah, I see the confusion. It's not when the matter was created, it's when the rock became solidified.
Barbarian observes:
And C-14, which is almost never used for fossils because it degrades so fast that it quickly goes down to background levels, can be used, if it involves formerly living tissue, which didn't get a significant part of its carbon from geologic sources, and hadn't been contaminated by seepage.
With C-14 dating, yes. You see, nitrogen in the atmosphere is produced by radiation, mostly in the high atmosphere from cosmic rays. The carbon immediately starts decaying, so there's a dynamic equilibrium of C-14 in the atmosphere. So plants take up carbon, including C-14, and when they die, they stop accumulating the carbon and it begins to decay away. Obviously, animals eating plants or animals eating animals that ate plants, will also be testable by this process.
There are some pitfalls. Nitrogen in the ground can be converted to C-14 by radiation there. Animals that get most of their carbon from geologic sources, like mollusks or animals eating them, will give false and very old ages.
And there's contamination to think about, too.
Look at the site I linked for you; it's entertaining and you'll learn a lot from it.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific?
Did you read the next sentence in my post? I felt I was more specific, if you would miss what I was saying as I expressed the question which formed as a thought in my mind.
No, even a minor effort by you to look back and see what I actually said would have shown this:
- Status