Free Republic

The sole reason for all “old Earth” approaches is the need for time for evolution.

Man, you are twisting things all sideways... Evolution is not an input AT ALL to the age of the Earth. None, nada, other than your little fantasy.

I guess I’m out, you cannot debate with someone who makes up their own facts and simply out-and-out lies about what the opposing position really holds.

So you accept stratification? We can look at the strata of earth in a given area, and the artifacts contained therein. And then we can keep looking at even deeper strata, and going backwards.

You have an idea stuck in your head, but it disregards the fact that any distribution is possible since the Qs were most likely based on need rather than anything else.

"Why does everyone conflate an old Earth with evolution? The age of the Earth is NOT dependent upon evolution! The facts are pretty irrefutable that the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years."

That is utter nonsense. Its all arbitrary assumption, based on the need to conform to assumed dates. Nothing is dependant on evolution, but nevertheless evolution is used as the initial control in all assumptions.

Here you go. Explain how you get the mix of elements that the YEC approach requires, given the decay rates shown. If the elements were created simultaneously, given that each step is a different half-life, we would end up with radically different mixes than what you currently have.

In archaeology all strata are very local. Sometimes only a few acres. that is why the ‘pottery clock’ method is used for a preliminary date assumption.

Backward to what? - Its irrelevant, since you are pushing back arbitrarily past the creation point.

So then you do not accept geological stratification for dating artifacts?

Why does everyone conflate an old Earth with evolution? The age of the Earth is NOT dependent upon evolution! The facts are pretty irrefutable that the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.

Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

Work the rates backwards, and you’ll end up with ages MUCH older than 6,000 years, or 10,000 years or whatever it is that the YEC crowd claims...

The simple fact is that geological evidence overwhelmingly points to an Earth MUCH older than 10,000 years, meaning that the evidence overwhelmingly disproves the YEC approach.

The simple fact is that geological evidence overwhelmingly points to an Earth MUCH older than 10,000 years, meaning that the evidence overwhelmingly disproves the YEC approach, according to the biased analysis placed into the record. GIGO. I believe God created the "heavens and the Earth". There is no mechanical description of His process, though a "Big Bang" seems to show things emanating from a central location, and could be the motive force moving out as "God spoke"! It is good.

FWIW, I am not an YEC. I do not know how old it is, but don't have much respect science's self-determinations of the "record", by those with an "axe to grind". With the ADW crowd, we see evidence of "science" making it's own results look good, in the face of the opposite. I see nothing in Scripture at odds with creation. but I do not see evolution as a "series of accidents" against overwhelming odds.

Chaos does not yield these kinds of results, in my humble uneducated opinion. There's too much evidence of a guiding hand..

They all ‘slide’ together idiot.

The accumulated amount of accumulated daughter elements in a sample millions or billioins of years old will be substantially different that one that's only several thousand years old. The only way to duplicate that is for the sample to have formed with those daughter elements already present, and in exactly the same proportions as natural decay would produce. You can't slide past that.

"If you accept the ability to use geological strata for dating artifacts, then you accept it."

Its a purely sociological concept.

No, it doesn’t, since nobody can fix the beginning Q for any element, and it was the creator’s choice as to how much to create.

Nice try though.

They all ‘slide’ together idiot.

Surely as a "non-idiot" you would recognize and acknowledge that different materials have different half-life decay rates. Oops, makes your statement a bit ignorant, doesn't it?

I see... So because you reject the theory of evolution, geological strata aging must be wrong. Nothing about radioactive dating at all - just strata in the ground.

If you accept the ability to use geological strata for dating artifacts, then you accept it. It’s independent of the theory of evolution. The age of the Earth being a few billion years old has no bearing on the theory of evolution; evolution is not required for the Earth to be that old.

The simple fact is that geological evidence overwhelmingly points to an Earth MUCH older than 10,000 years, meaning that the evidence overwhelmingly disproves the YEC approach.

They all ‘slide’ together idiot.

In your dreams

"And that technique often leads to ages that are millions of years old."

Only if you accept the false assumptions of age of fossils that were used to date the rock and project back the quantities of radioactive elements for their decay /age calcs. Its all circular reasoning aimed at allowing enough time for evolution to work. Unfortunately there still isn't enough time!

You are misunderstanding what I meant.

the halflife never changes, regardless of where you pick on the scale. (I probably should have said constant, but even that would have caused someone to object)

Halflifes are essentially linear; you must have touched this at some time in HS or early college.

You need to go and demand your money back from that college or HS; half-life of a radioactive decay is an exponential effect, it is constant with time not with mass (which would be a linear effect - like water evaporation).

The reason radiometric time dating is even possible is because it is an exponential effect; if it was linear, at some point in the future you would have zero radioactivity left. As an exponential decay you never run out with radioactivity, just an ever-decreasing amount.

That is the million dollar question. Artifacts are usually dated based on layers, and the style of pottery found in those layers.

Exactly. And most dating of fossils and geological formations are based on the same technique - layering. And that technique often leads to ages that are millions of years old.

Sure, it's not exact, but even if your 1,000,000 age is off by 250,000 years, well, that's still a LOT older than the YEC group.

Always wondered how they allow layering for dating of artifacts in the Bible, but disallow it for geological aging beyond things in the Bible...

I’m doing way better than you are.

Learn to read!

It gets tiresome when fools with no knowledge try to work behind a smoke screen. You could use a search engine and do better than this!

Halflifes are essentially linear; you must have touched this at some time in HS or early college.

What does that change? A sample of uranium undergoing decay will accumulate daughter elements in proportion to their relative half-lives, on their way to becoming lead. That process will produce specific ratios of those elements in the sample during the decay process. What's the probability all of those samples formed with exactly those elements, in exactly those proportions to produce what appears to be naturally decaying uranium in a newly-formed sample?

There is no statistical issue WRT the proportions; its just a matter of where you slide the index arrow to.

What does that mean? All the transuranic daughter elements between uranium and lead have their own half-lives. In a state of natural decay, they would accumulate in proportion to their relative half lives. You cannot "slide the index arrow" on the transuranics between uranium and radiogenic lead.

Halflifes are essentially linear; you must have touched this at some time in HS or early college.

The dating you are questioning is based on the known rate of decay of the elements trapped in the rock when it was formed. The rates of decay of the known elements have been observed and are based on physical laws. For those rates of decay to be incorrect that means that the current physical laws were not that the same when that rock was formed, so what would have changed those physical laws?

However I must give you credit for attempting to set up your straw-man. Let’s see so far we have seen avoidance, and the misdirection via your straw-man. My bet is next comes the name-calling.

There is no statistical issue WRT the proportions; its just a matter of where you slide the index arrow to.

The statistical problem is for the ‘chance’ occurance of something as complex as life in any amount of time. And the development of irreducibly complex structures just adds to the already impossible dream.

The decay rates are not the issue; the false assumptions for the original composition of the planet are the issue. The decay rates work quite well when proper composition proportions are used.

And you submit that all of those samples solidified having exactly the elements and proportions consistent with long-term (billions of years) natural radioactive decay.

"Nice attempt at avoiding the question, however those assumption are based on the observed rate of decay and that is based on the physical laws of the universe."

All that you've done is demonstrate my statement that you do not understand this at a very basic level!

The decay rates are not the issue; the false assumptions for the original composition of the planet are the issue. The decay rates work quite well when proper composition proportions are used.

Dr Rohl does not maintain that his dates ‘refute’ Exodus. He applies an adjustment to the ellapsed time from Moses to Christ of about 250 years; that does no particular violence to the word.

What it really does is upset the British Egyptologists to the max.

BTTT

Nice attempt at avoiding the question, however those assumption are based on the observed rate of decay and that is based on the physical laws of the universe.

So for the rate of decay to have changed from what we see in the present then the physical laws would have to change. So what is your special pleading to get around this fact?

Be honest for a change; there is no evidence for their assumptions; just a deep desire for something statistically impossible to the 40 trillionth power to be true.

What's the statistical probability of all those samples having solidified with exactly those elements, in exactly those proportions?

"About 10 years ago Dr. Rohl was able to demonstrate that the then current pottery clock was in fact wrong, based on writings on the Egyptian archives, and currently the question is not settled."

Do you support Dr. Rohl's findings that the revised pottery clock refutes Exodus?

Be honest for a change; there is no evidence for their assumptions; just a deep desire for something statistically impossible to the 40 trillionth power to be true.

the then current pottery clock was in fact wrong, based on writings on the Egyptian archives, and currently the question is not settled.

So many areas are perpetually 'wrong', but swear they are correct and scientific 'at the moment'.

The liberals have for years used any area that involves speculation as a means to further their political goals.

Most of them are secular humanists or they have an axe to grind against the Bible, so their speculation will always be the same as that of the liberal's.

After all, they have been on the kick for years to destroy our religious traditions in order to further their own 'philosopical' beliefs.

The 'experts' are as politically motivated as any old Al Gore, but they all assure they are not.

That's always gives me a moment of pause for a disgusted smirk and a big horse laugh.

That is it in a nutshell. As long as you get to make assumptions, you get answers that you like.

Including the assumption that no amount of evidence justifies making any assumption.

"How do you know the archeological artifacts you dig up/reveal are accurate in terms of dates and times?"

That is the million dollar question. Artifacts are usually dated based on layers, and the style of pottery found in those layers. About 10 years ago Dr. Rohl was able to demonstrate that the then current pottery clock was in fact wrong, based on writings on the Egyptian archives, and currently the question is not settled.