Jump to content
Science Forums

How old is the earth?


goku

Recommended Posts

i'd like to see someone take a piece of bone from an animal that the birth date is known, and, date it useing all the current methods :confused:
If you’re willing to spend around $300, you can get your wish from any of many labs providing the service (a list of labs, with contact info, can be found at http://www.radiocarbon.org/Info). The lab will tell you how to prepare and ship the sample.

 

Radiocarbon dating can only estimate time since death, so you’d want to compare the estimates to the animals known date of death, not birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
so if i put some salt water in a glass and let it set the salt will settle to the bottom?
Nature has no problem removing salt from the oceans, it is taken out of the sea via marine sedimentary deposition. In other words, salt is deposited on the ocean floor along with carbonate (limestone), clay (shale), etc.; and I believe some rocks, like shales, tend to be more saline-rich than others. In addition, shales are scavengers of a whole host of other things such as arsenic, mercury, and selenium.

 

As a result, continental exposure, weathering, and erosion of some shales leads to the release and transport of these elements and molecules via surface and ground water systems. The Colorado River is today experiencing a salinity and selenium problem due primarily to the large amount of black shale outcropping within its river basin.

 

And if you know anything about how deleterious salinity is to agriculture, wildlife, humans; and then couple that with how scarce water is in the western half of the United States, you will understand what a serious problem this is.

 

YECism can't even come close to helping scientists understand how to deal with these sorts of issues. If it did, you can bet your bottom dollar we'd be using YEC models instead of old earth ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'd like to see someone take a piece of bone from an animal that the birth date is known, and, date it useing all the current methods :cup:

If you're referring to dating something like a dead deer found on the side of the road, that's not possible. Dating techniques have upper and lower age limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature has no problem removing salt from the oceans, it is taken out of the sea via marine sedimentary deposition. In other words, salt is deposited on the ocean floor along with carbonate (limestone), clay (shale), etc.; and I believe some rocks, like shales, tend to be more saline-rich than others. In addition, shales are scavengers of a whole host of other things such as arsenic, mercury, and selenium.

 

As a result, continental exposure, weathering, and erosion of some shales leads to the release and transport of these elements and molecules via surface and ground water systems. The Colorado River is today experiencing a salinity and selenium problem due primarily to the large amount of black shale outcropping within its river basin.

 

 

Informative and compelling, LOC; Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, true. Copernicus was a Catholic priest, almost a bishop. Indeed, in the entire history of western thought, what professed atheist ever rose to significant prominence between the times of Galen and Nietzsche (1700 odd years)?

 

Good question. I would say more than people imagine. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are probably among the most prominent Americans (although Franklin is perhaps a European-American). In Europe you are bound to find many more however and d'Holbach, Hume, Rosseau and Adam Smith are examples who predate Nietzsche.

 

The problem is of course that atheists were hunted down and burnt at the stake by the Inquisition or whoever was in charge of the church / politics at various times, so people like Hobbes and Marlowe denied being atheists although they most likely were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the simple fact is that if the earth is billions of years old the ocean would be way saltier than it is.

Really? It doesn't appear to be simple to me. How salty would it be if the Earth were billions of years old? Indeed, how salty for millions of years? In fact, how salty is it now? What units are you measuring saltiness in? What is the rate of increase in saltiness over time?

 

Son many things I don't even begin to understand about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sort of answer your question...I guess,

the ocean as of now is quite salty. In fact it has enough salt to make anyone throw up. This may sound stupid but I know, I've swollowed ocean water(and threw up) but it was an accident. Anyway I have to ask the same question: How do you measure the saltiness of ocean water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salinity is defined as the amount of solids dissolved in 1 kg of sea water, and is often measured in parts per thousand (ppt) or practical salinity units (PSU).

The average salinity in the ocean is around 35 PSU(=PPT)

 

In general, salinity is measured by a CTD instrument, which measures conductivity, temperature and pressure directly.

 

From conductivity and temperature, you can estimate salinity, since conductivity in a solution is mainly a function of salinity and temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, ocean salinity isn't a very useful tool to judge the age of the planet by. Due to the Salt Balance, the salinity has been pretty stable for quite some time. All we can use it for is to judge how long it takes for the specific volume of the ocean to get as salty as it currently is, but that point could've been reached a billion years ago already.

 

Interesting sidenote: Back when we were still fish, sperm had a medium (seawater) in which to swim to the egg cells. Land animals had to invent a way of protecting sperm cells on their journey outside the male body to get to the egg, so they don't dry out and die. Here's the amazing bit: The salinity, conductivity and pH of sexual fluids is identical to that of seawater. And it's been a couple 'o million years since we've last been at sea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relative to what? The age of our sun? The age of the forming of the sun? At what point do we choose to start measuring it? Way back when the previous sun or suns exploded maybe the earth already existed as a lump of debris from a previous explosion.

 

Assuming it formed at the same time sol formed, the point at which it reached 95% of its current volume could be used as a starting point.

 

But even here we'd need to use our concept of time which revolves around the units we use. These are all relative to the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun. We assume that this activity is constant. If it isn't, we're screwed. Also, we're assuming other phenomena are constant too, like the speed of light. Chemical reactions might take less or more time now than they did 100 million years ago. We just assume this stuff doesn't change.

 

But let's say that we could come up with a number. How accurate would it be and what would it give us? The last is what intrigues me here. What would it tell us and how can we use the information?

 

If the error factor has a large error factor, what could safely be concluded from it?

 

Maybe the benefit of the question is in the forming of the answer, not necessarily the answer itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not there are not possible ways to contaminate and skew an individual test, but if a bulk of tests show a similar date, then it is a good bet it is accurate.

Well, if you can finagle an individual test, you can adjust each one to meet each other. I believe that is exactly what is happening.

 

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html#wp1171722

 

Yes, radioactive dating is the most accepted method for dating the age of the earth. However, that dating has proven reliable when tested against tree rings, ice cores, and other dating methods. The science is entirely consistent.

-Will

Like Steve says, science basically assumes constancy unless shown otherwise. We can't eliminate all assumption, but we can refrain from pretending it's non-existent.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html

http://www.grisda.org/origins/18006.htm

 

YECism can't even come close to helping scientists understand how to deal with these sorts of issues. If it did, you can bet your bottom dollar we'd be using YEC models instead of old earth ones.

Theory has nothing to do with that. Dealing with salinity issues will become a game of politics and money.

 

YECism can't explain things, huh? Explain the strata, aquifers, magma chambers. Clarify the directions of plates, the reason for magnetic "reversals".

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview4.html

 

Scientists continue to beat their heads against things until they make sense, while there exists much more plausible and illuminating explanations.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theory has nothing to do with that. Dealing with salinity issues will become a game of politics and money.
It already is a game of politics and money.

 

The Colorado River is possibly the most regulated river in the country because its water provides drinking water to millions of people, water for millions of acres of agricultural land, and its water is aportioned between several states - it is vitally important to this nations economic well-being. Therefore anything that affects Colorado River quality will become a major issue to state, local, and the Federal Government, and they will want to know exactly why it's affected, how badly it's affected, and what has to be done to fix it.

 

Theory has everything to do with understanding, controlling, and treating the salinity issue in the Colorado. Geology is the ultimate cause of the salinity, not politics or money.

 

 

 

YECism can't explain things, huh? Explain the strata, aquifers, magma chambers. Clarify the directions of plates, the reason for magnetic "reversals".

 

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview3.html#wp1254110

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview4.html#wp1000866

Perhaps you could point to the spots in those links that discuss how salinity or selenium or arsenic or mercury are predominantly found in shales, specifically black shales, because I didn't see it. Where in those links do they touch on why shales are deposited instead of limestone.

 

How is the YEC discussion of magnetic reversals or directions of plate movement, or anything else in those links, going to solve the Colorado River salinity/selenium problem?

 

 

 

Scientists continue to beat their heads against things until they make sense, while there exists much more plausible and illuminating explanations.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview7.html#wp2120637

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction2.html#wp1100074

Perhaps you can illustrate how any of these links will explain the presence of llarge concentrations of arsenic, mercury, chromium, selenium, salinity in black shales and where it resides in the shale. I don't know enough about your models to understand them. I'd be interested to learn more about how to apply your YEC models to real-world settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to learn more about how to apply your YEC models to real-world settings.

The links don't speak of those things. I was intending them to address volcanoes and earthquakes, against the accusation that YECism can't deal with "these sorts of issues" and the implication that popular theory can.

 

The first pair of links were specifically earthquakes and volcanoes respectively, while the second pair were of the general theory behind the first pair.

 

I don't pretend to know anything about salinity, nor do my links. And neither have I the slightest for a remedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The links don't speak of those things. I was intending them to address volcanoes and earthquakes, against the accusation that YECism can't deal with "these sorts of issues" and the implication that popular theory can.

 

The first pair of links were specifically earthquakes and volcanoes respectively, while the second pair were of the general theory behind the first pair.

 

I don't pretend to know anything about salinity, nor do my links. And neither have I the slightest for a remedy.

Then why promote them as being "much more plausible and illuminating" if you don't know how to apply them to solve real-world situations?

 

You are speaking from ignorance of your own YEC models. If you can't apply them, then you don't know enough about the models to promote them.

 

Ask me a question, any question, and I'll answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...