Your link doesnât work for me. And talk origins isnât a trustworthy site. Not only that you are also ignoring what I posted on the topic- that we have to know how the earh was formed before trying to determine its age
I canât imagine a bigger waste of time, @JoeG.
You have already demonstrated a consistent lack of interest in scientific results ⌠so why should anyone try to present science on how the Earth was formed?
You are now working red herrings TWO LEVELS DEEP.
Here you go.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agescience2.htm
You mean itâs a site you donât like.
Why?
In order for rad decay to give an accurate age of the earth the earth had to have been completely molten at one time in order to get rid of all crystals in the accretion debris. If not you are dating the crystals and not the earth, meaning the earth could be young but made up of old debris.
Now @JoeG is trying to say that when God created the Earth out of nothing ⌠he first made âold debrisâ out of nothing THEN he made the Earth out of Old Debris.
I kid you not⌠this guy is always thinking !
When you have evidence that âthe crystalsâ are being dated and not âthe earthâ, do let us know. We donât need to know how the earth was formed before we try to determine its age. We can measure directly the age of the components of the earth, and measure directly the date at which the earth passed through various forms, including its molten form.
I never said anything about God. Your desperation is showing
I just told you
Umm that just measures the age of the crystals. It appears that you donât understand what I posted.
No youâve totally misunderstood the issue. No one has said âIf you date these crystals you know exactly how old the earth isâ. The date of the crystals is simply one datum which contributes to our determination of the age of the earth. The date of the crystals means the earth must be older than the crystals, for a start.
Do you not understand that the crystals are part of the earth, and that dating the crystals provides the earth, and the fact that the crystals had to form first adds to the minimum age of the earth? As I said, we can measure directly the age of the components of the earth, and measure directly the date at which the earth passed through various forms, including its molten form. This does not simply involve measuring âthe crystalsâ. We can measure other components as well. We can also measure the age of meteorites which have hit the earth. There are so many methods we can use.
Jon, If the crystals originated in the space debris and the space debris made up the earth then you are measuring the age of said space debris, which should be way older than the earth.
Do you not understand that the crystals were formed in space way before the earth was allegedly formed? Do you not understand that space debris crystals make up the components of the earth?
We measure the age of meteorites by examining their crystals. Ya see, Jon, crystals are supposed to ensure there isnât any leakage that is why they are so important to measuring age- allegedly no contamination. For everything outside of crystals contamination rules and ages and not providedâŚ
This and the rest of your post indicates you do not understand the topic you are trying to talk about.
In the interest of accuracy, what you should be saying here George is that this is where YEC loses you, not where ID loses you. You never miss an opportunity to complain that ID advocates do not take the time to understand the BioLogos position, yet you insist on conflating ID with YEC, even when it is pointed out to you that it just aint so! To be clear, ID is not about the age of the earth. at all. That YECs tend to embrace ID does not make the two identical. They are not.
The only I.D. advocates that have come closest to gaining my respect are Old Earthers (who accept the science of the antiquity of the Earth) ⌠but who spoil the whole thing by saying God âpoofedâ millions of species into existence, instead of guiding evolutionary processes.
The logical ones are the Old Earthers who say God created all these species in Sequence ⌠making it look like populations were evolving.
As you have seen, or will see, in other threads, you appear to be totally avoiding the whole issue of Earthâs age. That wonât fly. You canât attack the scientific foundation of Evolution (ala BioLogos) and then REFUSE to state your conviction of the age of the Earth, or whether God used evolution to create all his millions of life forms - - or âpoofedâ them all into existence.
NowâŚJoe, if you reject Young Earth, then I can very specifically separate your position from the rest of YEC. But right now ⌠I strongly suspect that you are just hiding your inchoate YEC views behind a bushel.
Assuage my suspicions⌠state clearly what your beliefs are. Because I can not believe someone as ardent and persistent as you has not reached a conclusion about the age of the Earth and how all these millions of life forms got here.
Maybe you can dazzle everyone with your Frequency = Wavelength assertion.
So apparently, @JoeG has this in is signature on an antievolution.org:
Frequency is just the plural of wavelengthâŚ
Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Happy Birday Amadan
I really hope he is just being âironicâ somehow. Because that is just hard to swallow. To the point, Iâm sure it must be a joke. Right?
The fact that he is on a http://antievolution.org though does beg the question too. Isnât this the exact reason why some feel that ID is anti-evolution?
Sadly, Joe went on for months, on several different blogs, defending an obviously mistaken statement about frequency being equal to wavelength. A simple error, the like of which we have all been guilty of at one time or another. But unlike most of us, he did not simply admit the mistake and let it be forgotten.
Sorry, could you expand on this remarkable statement? Are you saying that the theory of evolution isnât scientific, or that it is not technically a theory? Or perhaps that too many people have pontificated for there to be one universally-agreed-upon statement?
I suspect that all three of these concerns, or any others, can be easily resolved by reading the article below, but itâs lengthy and it would help to know more specifically what caused you to make the statement you did.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.