• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How we know that the earth is old

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
After reading this thread, which is very broad in scope, I decided to start a thread focusing on one [relatively] narrow aspect of the subject of origins.

When multiple independent lines of evidence give the same result, we can be very confident in said result. Various forms of radiometric dating have been challenged by Young Earth Ereationists (hereinafter YECs), but we can be very sure that these radiometric methods are very accurate, as I will outline in this post.

Due to tidal drag, the earth's rotation is slowing. The rate of this slowing can be precisely measured (0.0016 seconds per century). For a certain amount of time ago, one can calculate how long a day would have been. For instance, 400 million years ago, a day would have been about 21.5 hours long. Since a day was shorter, there would have been more days in a year (400 million years ago, there would have been about 400 days per year). Corals have daily and annual growth rings. Corals living today have 365 daily growth rings for every annual growth rings. However, fossil corals have been found that have more than 365 daily growth rings for every annual ring. Specifically, corals have been found in strata dated, via radio-isotope methods, to about 400 million years ago. These corals have about 400 daily growth rings per annual growth ring, indicating that they lived during a time when the year was about 400 days long. Via simple physics, as outlined at the start of this paragraph, one can correlate the number of days per year with a specific amount of time in the past, and vice versa. Since a 400 day year corresponds, via the physics calculations, to 400 million years ago, and since the strata in which the fossil corals were found were radiometrically dated to 400 million years ago, we have excellent independent confirmation of the validity and integrity of radiometric dating.

QED
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
We know the earth is very old because several members of The Oulde Pharte Men's Club were around when the molten mass was cooling and the debate was taking place on what the place ought to look like. Personally, I was on the feasability committe about dirt. (BTW, I voted against it. Obviouskly, I was outvoted.)

stay safe.
 

Lurchiron

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,011
Location
Shawano,WI.
There's a good TV commercial that hawks these units that you stick rolls of wax paper, plastic wrap, and/or aluminum foil in and they then dispense
the exact amount needed for your purpose. Matter of fact they even preload them with the roll of choice for you...I'm guessing the aluminum foil for you, right???
minarchist.jpg :cool:
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Well OP, if the earth's rotation is slowing, then what real estate should I purchase to be in the light side once it stops all together?

I need to know as I invest in real estate ...
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Because when method A and method B give nearly identical answers, and the two methods are completely unrelated, that doesn't refute the claims by the scientifically illiterate that method A is invalid. No, nuh uh. :rolleyes:

So the pseudoscientists are left with

(1) complete, utter coincidence, or

(2) massive conspiracy by thousands of strangers in dozens of countries, or

(3) "la la la la I can't hear you" while plugging their ears (kind of like the replies in this thread so far),

to explain away this very damaging truth.

I will be sure to point to this thread and the initial lack of substantive replies the next time someone brings up the tired old "radiometric dating in invalid because ____" B.S.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
After reading this thread, which is very broad in scope, I decided to start a thread focusing on one [relatively] narrow aspect of the subject of origins.

When multiple independent lines of evidence give the same result, we can be very confident in said result. Various forms of radiometric dating have been challenged by Young Earth Ereationists (hereinafter YECs), but we can be very sure that these radiometric methods are very accurate, as I will outline in this post.

Due to tidal drag, the earth's rotation is slowing. The rate of this slowing can be precisely measured (0.0016 seconds per century). For a certain amount of time ago, one can calculate how long a day would have been. For instance, 400 million years ago, a day would have been about 21.5 hours long. Since a day was shorter, there would have been more days in a year (400 million years ago, there would have been about 400 days per year). Corals have daily and annual growth rings. Corals living today have 365 daily growth rings for every annual growth rings. However, fossil corals have been found that have more than 365 daily growth rings for every annual ring. Specifically, corals have been found in strata dated, via radio-isotope methods, to about 400 million years ago. These corals have about 400 daily growth rings per annual growth ring, indicating that they lived during a time when the year was about 400 days long. Via simple physics, as outlined at the start of this paragraph, one can correlate the number of days per year with a specific amount of time in the past, and vice versa. Since a 400 day year corresponds, via the physics calculations, to 400 million years ago, and since the strata in which the fossil corals were found were radiometrically dated to 400 million years ago, we have excellent independent confirmation of the validity and integrity of radiometric dating.

QED

I wonder who created this old thing ?

Is there an experiment I could do to prove it ?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,925
Location
North Carolina
I will be sure to point to this thread and the initial lack of substantive replies the next time someone brings up the tired old "radiometric dating in invalid because ____" B.S.
Please cite where the above was brought up or said? Are you making stuff up again?
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Please cite where the above was brought up or said? Are you making stuff up again?

Strawman. I never said that "the next time someone brings up the tired old "radiometric dating in invalid because ____" B.S." refers to something that occured in this thread. On the contrary, I created this thread in response to claims, both elsewhere on this board and off this board, that radiometric dating is invalid.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,925
Location
North Carolina
Strawman. I never said that "the next time someone brings up the tired old "radiometric dating in invalid because ____" B.S." refers to something that occured in this thread. On the contrary, I created this thread in response to claims, both elsewhere on this board and off this board, that radiometric dating is invalid.

So you are admitting to making crapola up?

LIAR!
 

KYKevin

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
323
Location
Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
There's a good TV commercial that hawks these units that you stick rolls of wax paper, plastic wrap, and/or aluminum foil in and they then dispense
the exact amount needed for your purpose. Matter of fact they even preload them with the roll of choice for you...I'm guessing the aluminum foil for you, right???
View attachment 10397 :cool:

Hey! I was selling those kits! There must be someone spying on me. I better go make a hat and line my windows with tinfoil. :)
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I wonder who created this old thing ?

Is there an experiment I could do to prove it ?

Where is the evidence that says the earth MUST have been created by "something". In fact, we KNOW how planets are formed and it doesn't require any supernatural forces, why would the earth be any different? When you assume an answer before you even ask the question you have effectively failed at any science based approach to the topic.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Since there has been a known rate of space dust collection on the earth and that some areas are relatively undisturbed you can theoretically measure the number of layers found for X depth do some math and then run the numbers and come out with a theoretical age of the planet.

You do have to keep in mind the number of comets that come through at what intervals and those would have to be added to the calculations.

Realistically we don't know the age of the Earth. We can make a theoretical claim that it is X(number)millions/billions of years old though.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Where is the evidence that says the earth MUST have been created by "something". In fact, we KNOW how planets are formed and it doesn't require any supernatural forces, why would the earth be any different? When you assume an answer before you even ask the question you have effectively failed at any science based approach to the topic.

Evidence that the earth MUST have been created? Well, the Earth is here so... :D

If the Earth was "created", then the evidence of such would not be scientific.
 
Last edited:

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Evidence that the earth MUST have been created? Well, the Earth is here so... :D

If the Earth was "created", then the evidence of such would not be scientific.

Exactly..and the formation of planets is not unknown. The Earth very well COULD have been "created" by something, however nothing says that it must have happened. To assume a creator when one is not needed is useless.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Since there has been a known rate of space dust collection on the earth and that some areas are relatively undisturbed you can theoretically measure the number of layers found for X depth do some math and then run the numbers and come out with a theoretical age of the planet.

You do have to keep in mind the number of comets that come through at what intervals and those would have to be added to the calculations.

Realistically we don't know the age of the Earth. We can make a theoretical claim that it is X(number)millions/billions of years old though.

I beg to differ. Independent methods give the same answer to within very small tolerances. The earth is very probably 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Exactly..and the formation of planets is not unknown. The Earth very well COULD have been "created" by something, however nothing says that it must have happened. To assume a creator when one is not needed is useless.

To assume no creator leaves out the biggest piece of the puzzle. That to me is useless.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
I saw a Doctor Who show that showed when the Earth will be destroyed ... I wasn't paying that much attention but I think it's going to happen next month. Sayonara, suckers.
 
Top