Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is another guess hypothesis. This statement says it all
‘The theory of plate tectonics states that the lithosphere, which is the layer of Earth that includes the continental and oceanic crusts, is divided into seven large plates and several smaller ones. ’
Yet another theory based upon conjecture. This cannot be considered as evidence of anything. It is another wild guess.
Continental drift is a reality and is measurable by means of laser satellite ranging. Subduction zones which are boundaries that mark the collision between two of the planet's tectonic plates are not a hypothesis. The Himalaya mountains are growing because one continental plate is colliding with another continental plate.
By the way, in science the word 'theory' doesn't mean 'a wild guess.'
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
I see that Mensaguy beat me to it, and issued a subtle warning against further science discussions, so further discussions about the age of the earth should be confined to what the Bible says. . . which it doesn't.
A little confused on the wording. Just because someone calls an idea a theory does not make it true. Does the “theory” fit into the definition below? Hardly.
But I wil comply and no longer call out science fiction.
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:
"knowledge attained through study or practice," or
"knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
Oh, good grief. Stop listening to the 'scientists' at Answers at Genesis. Ocean sediment is not a good way to estimate the age of the earth for the simple reason that the ocean floor is constantly being created and destroyed. The ocean floor is much younger than the earth.
As for radiocarbon (C14), that dating method is for dating objects containing organic matter and is only reliable for dating objects up to about 50,000 years old.
The dating method which was used for the dating of the zircons from Australia involved counting individual atoms of lead, one by one, to determine the age of the zircons. Since the decay rate of uranium into lead is known, an accurate count of the lead atoms gives an accurate age estimate.
Put a little effort into educating yourself on the subject.
I have never read anything from answers in genesis Mike, other then the quote that someone else posted here. However I have educated myself on this issue and what I find is that I cannot trust either the young earth scientist or the secular/evolution scientist to give a straight honest answer. Call me uneducated if you like; I simply refuse to follow the masses of either group without questioning their findings. Maybe you are comfortable following the masses Mike or maybe it is because those masses line up with what you believe but just maybe you should try to educate yourself on the issue instead of swallowing everything hook line and sinker.
Quote:
As for radiocarbon (C14), that dating method is for dating objects containing organic matter and is only reliable for dating objects up to about 50,000 years old.
Thanks for making my point. However I do believe that it is good for around 100000 years.
So as C14 can only be detected for up to 100000 years what is it doing in coal and diamonds dated 3 and 4 billion years old? IT SHOULD NOT BE THERE, but IT IS.
A little confused on the wording. Just because someone calls an idea a theory does not make it true. Does the “theory” fit into the definition below? Hardly.
But I wil comply and no longer call out science fiction.
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:
"knowledge attained through study or practice," or
"knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
Yes Plate Tectonics is a theory. It has been studied and tested and measured. We can tell how much one plate has moved respective of another plate, we can map subduction zones and sea floor spreading.
Do you have even a single piece of evidence that could call into question the theory of plate tectonics. And science is about coming up with the best explanation that covers all the facts or evidence.
In addition to real time measurement of plate movement there are matching fossil and geological deposits that are best explained by this theory plus the lack of older sea bed deposits, volcanos, hot spots, rift valleys and deformed crust formatiins.
In science one cannot simply call an idea or hypothesis a theory, it has to have been tested and accepted after having been well tested. And yes plate tectonics would be well within your non scientific dictionary definition, well studied, tested and concerns the physical world.
Edit Plate tectonics of course us not in the Bible nor is it in science books from the 1950s hence in reality has no bearing on what if any age the Bible may give to the Earth.
05-25-2018, 05:31 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
So as C14 can only be detected for up to 100000 years what is it doing in coal and diamonds dated 3 and 4 billion years old? IT SHOULD NOT BE THERE, but IT IS.
Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below).
Also the levels at 100,000 years is so small it renders it useless. It's no better than noise. The article also mention some other possible reason like bacteria. Come on people a 6-10,000 year old earth - get real.
I have never read anything from answers in genesis Mike, other then the quote that someone else posted here. However I have educated myself on this issue and what I find is that I cannot trust either the young earth scientist or the secular/evolution scientist to give a straight honest answer. Call me uneducated if you like; I simply refuse to follow the masses of either group without questioning their findings. Maybe you are comfortable following the masses Mike or maybe it is because those masses line up with what you believe but just maybe you should try to educate yourself on the issue instead of swallowing everything hook line and sinker.
I doubt very much that you've educated yourself on the issue. The fact that you believe sediment on the sea floor has any validity for measuring the age of the earth contraindicates your claim as does the fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between C14 dating and the Uranium-lead dating technique used on the zircon crystals in which individual atoms of lead were counted to arrive at an accurate dating. Since the decay rate of uranium to lead is known, the dating technique is reliable. But again, I doubt that you even read the article I posted.
And I think that I've demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Thanks for making my point. However I do believe that it is good for around 100000 years.
So as C14 can only be detected for up to 100000 years what is it doing in coal and diamonds dated 3 and 4 billion years old? IT SHOULD NOT BE THERE, but IT IS.
I did not make your point. I contrasted C14 dating with the dating method used on the zircon crystals in which individual atoms of lead were counted in order to provide an accurate count.
Now, Mensaguy has already hinted that the science discussion has gone on long enough.
Yes Plate Tectonics is a theory. It has been studied and tested and measured. We can tell how much one plate has moved respective of another plate, we can map subduction zones and sea floor spreading.
Do you have even a single piece of evidence that could call into question the theory of plate tectonics. And science is about coming up with the best explanation that covers all the facts or evidence.
In addition to real time measurement of plate movement there are matching fossil and geological deposits that are best explained by this theory plus the lack of older sea bed deposits, volcanos, hot spots, rift valleys and deformed crust formatiins.
In science one cannot simply call an idea or hypothesis a theory, it has to have been tested and accepted after having been well tested. And yes plate tectonics would be well within your non scientific dictionary definition, well studied, tested and concerns the physical world.
Edit Plate tectonics of course us not in the Bible nor is it in science books from the 1950s hence in reality has no bearing on what if any age the Bible may give to the Earth.
According to some “scientists”. oceans billions of years old. Tell me, how long have they have been studying and measuring these plates? 50 years ? That is a .000000001 sample of time. C’mon. That is mind boggling ridiculous to make any “theory” of what has happened. That is not science. Look at the definition again and tell me how can it fit ?
According to some “scientists”. oceans billions of years old. Tell me, how long have they have been studying and measuring these plates? 50 years ? That is a .000000001 sample of time. C’mon. That is mind boggling ridiculous to make any “theory” of what has happened. That is not science. Look at the definition again and tell me how can it fit ?
I have a degree in physical geography with a minor in geology. You claim of plate tectonics not fitting the definition of science is either out of ignorance or an attempt to discredit a science that you feel does not agree with your opinion. N9 8dea of what you mean by some scientists oceans billions of years old. That is a sentence with no real meaning. US we have former sea beds that are very old that were raised far above sea level by plate tectonics.
Maybe you are saying is that even though we can measure the movements of the plates today we cannot know that they move because we weren't measuring them ten thousand years ago. What is mind blogging ridiculously 8s your very feeble attempt at claiming that plate tectonics, or really all science as silly cause we were not observing it since day 1.
According to some “scientists”. oceans billions of years old. Tell me, how long have they have been studying and measuring these plates? 50 years ? That is a .000000001 sample of time. C’mon. That is mind boggling ridiculous to make any “theory” of what has happened. That is not science. Look at the definition again and tell me how can it fit ?
Do you not understand that the rate of continental drift is measurable. The North American and Eurasian continents are moving apart at the rate of about one inch per year. The continents are moving apart because the tectonic plates upon which they lie are moving. Satellite laser ranging (SLR) gives us a very precise meaurement of the rate at which the continents are moving.
You can very easily look this stuff up for yourself.
I have a degree in physical geography with a minor in geology. You claim of plate tectonics not fitting the definition of science is either out of ignorance or an attempt to discredit a science that you feel does not agree with your opinion. N9 8dea of what you mean by some scientists oceans billions of years old. That is a sentence with no real meaning. US we have former sea beds that are very old that were raised far above sea level by plate tectonics.
Maybe you are saying is that even though we can measure the movements of the plates today we cannot know that they move because we weren't measuring them ten thousand years ago. What is mind blogging ridiculously 8s your very feeble attempt at claiming that plate tectonics, or really all science as silly cause we were not observing it since day 1.
The most simplistic argument against your ideology and you fold and resort to ridicule.
One more chance. You have a .00000008 sample size. Explain it to us please how that fits in with the definition of science. If you can’t answer this simple question, you need to get a refund on your education. And spare us the insults.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
