The last sentence you posted jgnat couldn't be more clear. Good explanation. And... I'm a flood story nut. I always bring it up I know. But, the ice cores destroy the global flood.
If man evolved?
by tornapart 427 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Heaven
What cofty wrote to me does not explain how anybody determines the age of a rock.
The answer should go something like.
A person takes a rock to a laboratory and ask the technician to tell him how old he guesses the rock
is. Then the technician takes a Geiger counter and counts the beeps and he is counting for x amount of beeps
because the technician is guessing the rock is emitting a certain kind and amount of radiation because.....
And why is he assuming the rock is emitting such and such an isotope.
I personally thought this was a good question from James. What he was asking us was what method is used to conduct the testing.
It took me a little while to find the information on accelerator mass spectrometry and more specifically on how U-Pb dating is measured using LA-MIC-ICP-MS (as one example).
-
OnTheWayOut
You guys provide some pretty good evidence for an "old earth" but it's just way easier for James Brown to watch a Kent Hovin video and assume Kent doesn't have a hidden agenda. It's not like Kent makes a living based on his beliefs, is it?
And it's not like James could find youtube videos with an opposing view.
While YOU GUYS on JWN clearly have much at stake here, much to lose. Of course, you will lie or leave out information, but not Kent Hovin.
-
James Brown
James Brown, every explanation I have given was in my own words. If you refuse to understand, that's your business. I thought the warehouse full of ice cores was pretty convincing.
As far as I can tell, your lack of confidence in radiometric testing is resting on a single instance, Mount St. Helen's lava, the results of which were explained to you. Using this single instance as reason enough to throw out all radiometric testing, is an example of confirmation bias.
Snowfall and melt, a little dust on top, one year. More snowfall and melt, little dust on top, second year. Layer upon layer of ice and dust, many years. Count the layers of dust - number of years. Count all the layers of dust, and that's how many years we can go back. So far the U.S. Geological survey has thousands of meters of ice core samples.
If a radiometric test of a sample from 3,000 meters down matches up with the result from manual counting of the rings, we have a linear confirmation of two counting methods.
Jgnat the highlighted paragraph is a good simple explanation. I was not aware of a method that could date the earth over 100,000
years. I will reflect on it and read some more about it. If the devil is not in the details then that would be the end of my believing
in a young earth.
-
James Brown
James Brown... Ever been in a cave? Ever seen a giant stellagtite or stalagmite? They take tens or hundreds of thousands of years to form. For an obvious reason. Hard minerals slowly turn to deposits and they then grow down out of the caves ceiling. How would you explain those with a belief in a young earth theory. Third attempt to get you to answer.
Comatose: I don't know the answer to your questions. I was hung up on the unreliability of radiometric dating.
I was not even aware of stalagmite dating, as a dating method.
Now that I see that ice cores may date the earth over 100,000 years if that proves true there is not much use
in me debating or arguing about other methods I don't know about.
If the earth is over 100, 000 years old my understanding of the bible
and a young earth is compromised.
The genealogy of Jesus back to Adam would indicate a young earth. If the earth is not young
that would make me question the writings about Jesus and the bible.
-
jgnat
A softer approach, James Brown, might be to give up a literal interpretation of the Bible. Heck, the Jews don't take the Adam and Eve tale literally.
-
James Brown
A softer approach, James Brown, might be to give up a literal interpretation of the Bible. Heck, the Jews don't take the Adam and Eve tale literally
If the earth is over 100,000 years old. I have no choice but to give up a literal interpretation of the bible.
-
Comatose
Just a question. Why is 100k the magic number. As a JW I was fine with the earth being millions of years old and still having been created. I don't think Genesis is literal now. But, I also am unsure of why 100k is your cutoff point where it falls apart for you.
-
James Brown
Just a question. Why is 100k the magic number. As a JW I was fine with the earth being millions of years old and still having been created. I don't think Genesis is literal now. But, I also am unsure of why 100k is your cutoff point where it falls apart for you.
Because the genealogy from Jesus to Adam do not allow for 100,000 years.
Also if there are 100,000 years of layers of ice that would rule out a world wide flood.
I haven't been a JW since 83. But I was a JW for 33 years before that.
If the earth is over 100,000 years old and the genealogy from Jesus to Adam are
wrong then Jesus did not die for Adams sin or mans sin.
STOP THE PRESSES!
It seems like the Devil is in the ice core details
World War II Airplanes Under the Ice
The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.
If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated
-
GoodGuyGreg
@James Brown:
Regarding radiometric dating, I believe I can explain the problem with the counterclaims for you in a pretty simple way.
Imagine you have a fancy watch, a certified chronometer, with indicators for everything from tenths of seconds up to phase of the moon. Now a friend of yours borrows it to time a quarter mile drag race. A day later he returns your watch and says it's completely useless: according to it, a ninish-second race took 14 hours. Also, he's gathered quite a following among his friends with his claim, and now many of them go around talking about how bad your watch is to anyone who will listen.
But when you ask him about his method of timing the drag race, it turns out he was using the phase of the moon indicator to time the race, completely ignoring the second- and tenths-of-second hands. He saw a tiny movement in the phase of the moon, measured that angular movement, and used that to measure the amount of time the race took..
Imagine radiometric dating as an extremely fancy - and certified - clock which has indicators ("hands" if you prefer) for any amount of time from fractions of seconds up to billions of years.
The Mount Helen "inconsistency" was based in knowingly using the "hundreds of thousands of years" hand to measure something a year- or at most decade indicator should have been used for, and then the entire "clock" was widely panned by the team due to what can only amount to "operator error": the limitations for each test are stated right in the "manual", so there's really no excuse for making a big fuss about a bad result if the fault lies in using the wrong kind of test for the type of sample. Actually, I would call this entire episode a school example of either willful ignorance or actual intellectual dishonesty on the part of the team that had the sample tested.