OLD ROCK

[Furrowed Brow]

Rock potentially 4.28 billion years old has been found on the shore of the Hudson Bay.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

Question for Creationist who believe the age of the Earth should be counted in only thousands of years: what is wrong with dating rock by the decay of neodymium and samarium? Where have the scientists gone wrong?

[McCulloch]

Where have the scientists gone wrong?

They trust human wisdom rather than trusting God! They question the divine revelation, given to all humanity by their Creator. If they first accepted that the Bible was true, then they would have not been tempted to commit this error.

[Furrowed Brow]

Where have the scientists gone wrong?

They trust human wisdom rather than trusting God! They question the divine revelation, given to all humanity by their Creator. If they first accepted that the Bible was true, then they would have not been tempted to commit this error.

So take one lump of Hudson Bay rock and place on table. Next to rock place Bible. What is the correct investigative method to get one to agree with the Creationist reading of the other?

[C-Nub]

I hate to play the role of the theist, but they aren't willing to stick their necks out on stuff like this, so I will. Hang on, let me cut off some of the blood flow to my brain to get into the right frame of mind.

The argument for this sort of thing, very much like that for red light shifting, is that god created the rock already 4.28 billion years (six thousand doesn't change the date to two decimal places) old, with the radioactive decay already well along.

[Cathar1950]

I hate to play the role of the theist, but they aren't willing to stick their necks out on stuff like this, so I will. Hang on, let me cut off some of the blood flow to my brain to get into the right frame of mind.

The argument for this sort of thing, very much like that for red light shifting, is that god created the rock already 4.28 billion years (six thousand doesn't change the date to two decimal places) old, with the radioactive decay already well along.

Why would God create a 4.28 billion year old rock?
Given He or She is eternal it seem God could just wait.
If you got a rock that old it is that old if it was 4000 years old it would be 4000 years old.
Now maybe God sped up time but then it still would be a 4.28 year old rock that went through time fast and would still be that old but the rest of the universe might be younger as it didn't age as fast.

How could it be that old if it had not aged.?

[C-Nub]

Give me some time between questions here, my brain needs more blood than I'm giving it.

For some reason, creationists who look at things like red light shifting, radioactive dating, canyon strata, antarctic ice-cores, cosmic background radiation, moon rocks, fossil evidence, mineral deposits, volcanism / plate tectonics, and just for fun let's say... cave paintings... believe that God wants to trick us. He created the Universe so that it looks that old. I haven't heard any compelling reasons as to why, I always just took it for the desperate rationalization it is.

[Cathar1950]

Give me some time between questions here, my brain needs more blood than I'm giving it.

For some reason, creationists who look at things like red light shifting, radioactive dating, canyon strata, antarctic ice-cores, cosmic background radiation, moon rocks, fossil evidence, mineral deposits, volcanism / plate tectonics, and just for fun let's say... cave paintings... believe that God wants to trick us. He created the Universe so that it looks that old. I haven't heard any compelling reasons as to why, I always just took it for the desperate rationalization it is.

I knew that.
Of course it is most likely they just don't understand the ideas behind most of this and any argument sounds good to them.
Give their favorite book is thought to be God's actual words to them it also tells tels them that God can and does send lying spirits.
One the other had God doesn't lie.
Maybe that is why He sends lying spirits because His big hands are tied with rules.
I guess if your going to believe everything in a collection of ancient writings is from your God your going to be capable of believing anything especially if you don't understand it.
Of course God is spirit except He must have a noise as he like the smell of roast.

[Goose]

Rock potentially 4.28 billion years old has been found on the shore of the Hudson Bay.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

Question for Creationist who believe the age of the Earth should be counted in only thousands of years: what is wrong with dating rock by the decay of neodymium and samarium? Where have the scientists gone wrong?

From the article:

Professor Francis was looking for clues to the nature of the Earth's mantle 3.8 billion years ago.

So he went looking for evidence that it is at least 3.8B years old and he found it.

The rocks turned out to be far older than first thought

Of course they did. That would make the discoverers famous.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

The oldest rocks, termed "faux amphibolite", were dated within the range from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.

"4.28 billion is the figure I favour," says Francis.

Classic. Of course he favours 4.28B. That would make him famous. He'll probably receive grant money now.

"It could be that the rock was formed 4.3 billion years ago, but then it was re-worked into another rock form 3.8bn years ago. That's a hard distinction to draw."

It's only a 500M year margin of error. No biggie when we're talking Billions, right?

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

TalkOrigins
Here's is something that bothers me. A 1% degree of margin. Sounds reasonable until we do the math. That's almost a 46million year margin of error. Can't they get it a little more precise than that? I mean this is supposed to be scientific.

So. Is the earth 4.6B? 4.3B? Older? Younger or what?

[McCulloch]

Here's is something that bothers me. A 1% degree of margin. Sounds reasonable until we do the math. That's almost a 46million year margin of error. Can't they get it a little more precise than that? I mean this is supposed to be scientific.

So. Is the earth 4.6B? 4.3B? Older? Younger or what?

Actually, not yet. The further away something gets, the more blurry the picture. The evidence currently suggests that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old and less than 5. It would be dishonest for scientists to conclude a degree of accuracy that is not warranted by the evidence.

It is similar to Sir James Lightfoot who calculated from Biblical evidence that creation occurred at 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC. Even a literal reading of the Bible yields a certain margin of error. Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech. Does that mean that Lamech was born on Methuselah's 187th birthday? Probably not. Lamech could have been born as late as a day before his father's 188th birthday. When you take into account all of these margins of error, the Bible teaches that Adam still could not have been created earlier than 8,000 years ago. This still is orders of magnitude different from the conclusions of science.

It is intellectually dishonest to try to make the point that science must be wrong, because it recognizes the current limitations and can estimate its own degrees of accuracy. The rock in question is clearly older than 10,000 years. Lots older.

[Goat]

Rock potentially 4.28 billion years old has been found on the shore of the Hudson Bay.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

Question for Creationist who believe the age of the Earth should be counted in only thousands of years: what is wrong with dating rock by the decay of neodymium and samarium? Where have the scientists gone wrong?

From the article:

Professor Francis was looking for clues to the nature of the Earth's mantle 3.8 billion years ago.

So he went looking for evidence that it is at least 3.8B years old and he found it.

The rocks turned out to be far older than first thought

Of course they did. That would make the discoverers famous.

They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.

What I would like to know is how they can guarantee these decay rates have remained constant for 4.3B years.

The oldest rocks, termed "faux amphibolite", were dated within the range from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.

"4.28 billion is the figure I favour," says Francis.

Classic. Of course he favours 4.28B. That would make him famous. He'll probably receive grant money now.

"It could be that the rock was formed 4.3 billion years ago, but then it was re-worked into another rock form 3.8bn years ago. That's a hard distinction to draw."

It's only a 500M year margin of error. No biggie when we're talking Billions, right?

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

TalkOrigins
Here's is something that bothers me. A 1% degree of margin. Sounds reasonable until we do the math. That's almost a 46million year margin of error. Can't they get it a little more precise than that? I mean this is supposed to be scientific.

So. Is the earth 4.6B? 4.3B? Older? Younger or what?

Yes, he found it. The point is that the rock bed where he found it can be visited by other people, who can take rocks and make their own tests. If you knew how, and understood the methodology that is used to determine the age of rocks, you could too. Remember, this test can be repeated by independent scientists. Testability. repeatably. fallibility. That is a mantra.. repeat it.

Now, that is more than you can say with supposed miracles, isn't it?