Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, August 16, 2019

How Old is the Earth?

-
As I have been saying, since I found out how "they" calculated the age of the earth, is that the age of the earth depends on how it was formed. That is because "their" methodology relies on the untestable assumption that all accretion material became molten, such that no debris crystals survived. That would mean all tested crystals were the result of processes here on earth.

Why is that a big deal? If the proto-earth was never molten then all that is being measured is the age of the accretion debris and not the age of the earth.

Why do I bring this up, again? A clueless loser of an evoTARD posted the following but of trash:
Those who deliberately ignore the incredibly broad and deep amount of physical evidence for the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth and the 3.8+ billion year history of life on the planet automatically disqualify themselves from any serious scientific discussion IMHO.
That is from a scientifically illiterate troll named Timothy Horton. Timmy is way too dim to understand what I posted. And he is too much of a coward to address it.

It seems that all materialists are too chicken to address it.

posted by Joe G @ 8:51 AM  

10 Comments:

  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger JV said…

    You haven't even read the Wikipedia article: Age of the Earth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

    From the article:

    "An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically lead-lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.[33]


    Lead isotope isochron diagram showing data used by Patterson to determine the age of the Earth in 1956.
    The quoted age of Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research.

    Most geological samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth from the solar nebula because Earth has undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by plate tectonics, weathering and hydrothermal circulation.

    All of these processes may adversely affect isotopic dating mechanisms because the sample cannot always be assumed to have remained as a closed system, by which it is meant that either the parent or daughter nuclide (a species of atom characterised by the number of neutrons and protons an atom contains) or an intermediate daughter nuclide may have been partially removed from the sample, which will skew the resulting isotopic date. To mitigate this effect it is usual to date several minerals in the same sample, to provide an isochron. Alternatively, more than one dating system may be used on a sample to check the date.

    Some meteorites are furthermore considered to represent the primitive material from which the accreting solar disk was formed.[34] Some have behaved as closed systems (for some isotopic systems) soon after the solar disk and the planets formed.[citation needed] To date, these assumptions are supported by much scientific observation and repeated isotopic dates, and it is certainly a more robust hypothesis than that which assumes a terrestrial rock has retained its original composition.

    Nevertheless, ancient Archaean lead ores of galena have been used to date the formation of Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.[35]"

    And

    "Lunar samples, since they have not been disturbed by weathering, plate tectonics or material moved by organisms, can also provide dating by direct electron microscope examination of cosmic ray tracks. The accumulation of dislocations generated by high energy cosmic ray particle impacts provides another confirmation of the isotopic dates. Cosmic ray dating is only useful on material that has not been melted, since melting erases the crystalline structure of the material, and wipes away the tracks left by the particles."

     

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Holy shit- way to ignore what I posted and prattle on like a willfully ignorant child.

    And yes, I have read plenty of actual scientific work on the age of the earth.

    I have no doubts about the age of the meteorites. That just supports my claim and it is very telling that you cannot understand that

     

  • At 2:18 PM, Blogger JV said…

    I have no doubts about the age of the meteorites. That just supports my claim and it is very telling that you cannot understand that

    Why should the age of the earth differ by more than 10% or so from the age of the meteorites?

     

  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why should the age of the earth differ by more than 10% or so from the age of the meteorites?

    Because the age of a wooden desk can differ from the age of the tree used to make it.

     

  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Why should the age of the earth differ by more than 10% or so from the age of the meteorites?

    Because the age of a wooden desk can differ from the age of the tree used to make it.

    So, you think the earth is probably younger than the meteorites? That it was formed out of bunches of older rocks and stuff? But more than 10% younger? Say more than 400 million years younger?

    We know earth has a molten core and probably had a molten core from when it was formed. Some of the dating techniques assume that and use that a a clock 'zeroing' moment. Which would give a way to date the earth separately from the meteorites and other objects in the solar system. Why would you consider those methods inaccurate?

     

  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm, the earth's inner most core is solid. And crystals have been found in magma chambers which means they did not melt.

     

  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Umm, the earth's inner most core is solid. And crystals have been found in magma chambers which means they did not melt.

    Okay . . . so . . . you still haven't got a guess as to how old the earth is?

    I would think, based on your support of ID, that having some idea of the timeframe involved would be important.

     

  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't know what is required to produce a planet. And why would the timing have any impact on whether or not we can detect and study design in nature?

     

  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I don't know what is required to produce a planet. And why would the timing have any impact on whether or not we can detect and study design in nature?

    I would think whether design was implemented a couple of billions of years ago or a few thousand years ago would make a huge difference!! It tells you a lot about the design and the speed by which the design takes hold and, might, stand in sharp contrast to the determined age of the fossil record.

     

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And yet there exist a plethora of artifacts that we cannot say exactly when nor exactly how. And guess what? They do NOT stop being artifacts because of that.

    I am sure that those questions will be addressed once ID is accepted and people are properly trained.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home