Rob Osborn Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 That's your opinion.Yes it certainly is but it is also the firm opinion and results of many scientists who decide to question the system. There are enough problems with dating that it isn't an anomaly anymore. Credibile scientists and organizations are growing in numbers day by day questioning the validity of dating things. So its just not my opinion. It has enough evidence behind it that mainstream science now knows there are definite issues with the dating systems they use.
thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Everything from your car doors to radioactive decay has an error rate(Tolerance). That is why there are +/- numbers after them. The tolerances within radioactive carbon dating are well known and allowed for. To claim that the earth is only 7000 years old is ludicrous in the extreme. The Atomic clock that our satellites are set to is accurate to 10−9 seconds per day.
Rob Osborn Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Everything from your car doors to radioactive decay has an error rate(Tolerance). That is why there are +/- numbers after them. The tolerances within radioactive carbon dating are well known and allowed for. To claim that the earth is only 7000 years old is ludicrous in the extreme. The Atomic clock that our satellites are set to is accurate to 10−9 seconds per day.I never said the age of the earth is 7,000 years old. I believe matter itself is eternal- has always existed and always will exist. As for the age of life and death on this planet- 7,000 years will be its temporal (temporary meaning "death") existence. Any organic material dated beyond this date from this earth does not align with the Churches official doctrine. So, please say that the churches official doctrine is ludicrous. I am just aligning my views with the church.
Ahab Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Before the flood people generally lived longer. Apparently there were also some who were giants who roamed the land and sought after the life of Noah. Things were definately different before the flood- there was only one land mass, there were giants, there was a different topography of the land, a major portion of land came forth out of the ocean and was then inhabited by Enoch and eventually it departed the earth. We can also assume that the gene pool was much stronger, less prone to disease and mutations, copy errors, etc before the flood in a larger population base. In modern revelation it clarifies that Noah is given 120 years to warn the people and to build a boat. People nowdays dont generally even make it to 120 years of age. So either there is truth in the long ages or Joseph Smith was a fraud. After the flood people still lived in the hundreds of years for several generations slowly ramping down into what we see today.As for dinosaurs, they obviously were brought onto the ark and saved otherwise we would not have the myriad of ancient records telling of mans interactions and final extinctions of them during the dark ages. Dragons are dinosaurs and are depicted in all ancient cultures as part of their historical events. In both text and art we see the works of the ancients depicting all types of dinosaurs During the dark ages and shortly after they were eventually hunted down and driven into extinction. The old testament even mentions two types of dinosaurs in great detail.As for the Grand Canyon. We are not sure how long after the flood that some of the still trapped water on the land busted through a natural dam to carve out the Grand Canyon. The event at Mt. St. Helens carving out a miniature canyon shows just what the power of water can do. That was on an extremely small scale compared to events surrounding the flood and upthrust of the land afterwards. The rocks at that time were obviously a lot softer then as we see many cases of animal tracks left in these rocks when it was still soft.The great fossil record we have shows events of rapid burial in a water/flood type of event. Fossils do not form from dead things that end up on the bottom of lakes and oceans. Fossils only form when the deposit is fast burying the whole specimen very quickly. This all testifies, everywhere in the world that tens of trillions of animals and plants were buried very rapidly in a flood event. They are buried in many cases in random conglomerations as if there was a catastrophic flood event. The geologic column with the fossils it contains is anything but nice and orderly. In many cases you see anomalies of fossils out of place on top of or under the layers they are supposed to be found in. You also have the fact that there are instances where fossils go through several different layers of supposedly different ages. Again this only testifies of catastrophism and actually proves the law of stratigraphy incorrect as far as ages go.As for the salinity of the ocena waters we are not sure what they were like and what could have or could not have survived. The whole earth with all its mountains of minerals were mixed in with the water during the flood until it all settled out into the different layers and then upthrust to great elevation. Its too hard to say what the water content was like and what could have survived. Many plants and seeds can easily survive inundation of water temporarily. Dear brother, you're blowing it big time. Do yourself a favor and stick to the generalities without trying to get specific on the details of what happened. There is still a lot that we don't know about, specifically, while we can still know that the scriptures are true.
Rob Osborn Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Dear brother, you're blowing it big time. Do yourself a favor and stick to the generalities without trying to get specific on the details of what happened. There is still a lot that we don't know about, specifically, while we can still know that the scriptures are true.Whats there to blow? The truth? Well then, I am guilty.
Ahab Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Whats there to blow? The truth? Well then, I am guilty. More like an opportunity to clearly convey the truth, rather than blowing the truth itself, but yeah you did blow it, bro. It did work if you were trying to be funny, though.
katherine the great Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 As have I. In fact, now that I've retired, I have re-enrolled in University, with the sole purpose of re-educating myself to be more qualified the next time I go on a dig.. I want to move up the ranks from doing hard labour to being able to write about what is found....hopefully with a modicum of knowledge. LoLNothing wrong with that! Publishing is a good thing! Kudos!
katherine the great Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Yes it certainly is but it is also the firm opinion and results of many scientists who decide to question the system. There are enough problems with dating that it isn't an anomaly anymore. Credibile scientists and organizations are growing in numbers day by day questioning the validity of dating things. So its just not my opinion. It has enough evidence behind it that mainstream science now knows there are definite issues with the dating systems they use.Can you please give us a list of the names and credentials of these many scientists who question the validity of radiometric dating and publications of their results that falsify our current methods?
Rob Osborn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 More like an opportunity to clearly convey the truth, rather than blowing the truth itself, but yeah you did blow it, bro. It did work if you were trying to be funny, though. The global flood demands answers and they are there if we can look at with the right logic.
Rob Osborn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Can you please give us a list of the names and credentials of these many scientists who question the validity of radiometric dating and publications of their results that falsify our current methods? Here is a list of some creation scientists http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ Here is a link to a paper with links at the bottom of the page http://earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric_Dating_and_The_Age_of_the_Earth.htm
katherine the great Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Here is a list of some creation scientistshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/Here is a link to a paper with links at the bottom of the pagehttp://earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric_Dating_and_The_Age_of_the_Earth.htmA list of creation scientists and a blog by an unknown person listing some alleged problems with a few radiometric results is not what I asked for. I would like to look at the actual journal publications from these scientists on this particular topic--not an unrelated topic. I also notice that the blog gives a chart of results with numbers that indicate citations, but no actual citations. I would like to look at the original papers the charts cite. All you are giving me is a meaningless conclusion from an unknown person. 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 A list of creation scientists and a blog by an unknown person listing some alleged problems with a few radiometric results is not what I asked for. I would like to look at the actual journal publications from these scientists on this particular topic--not an unrelated topic. I also notice that the blog gives a chart of results with numbers that indicate citations, but no actual citations. I would like to look at the original papers the charts cite. All you are giving me is a meaningless conclusion from an unknown person.Have you ever heard of the RATE project? Do a google search.
thesometimesaint Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I never said the age of the earth is 7,000 years old. I believe matter itself is eternal- has always existed and always will exist. As for the age of life and death on this planet- 7,000 years will be its temporal (temporary meaning "death") existence. Any organic material dated beyond this date from this earth does not align with the Churches official doctrine. So, please say that the churches official doctrine is ludicrous. I am just aligning my views with the church. No organic on this earth is younger than 7000 years? You're a hoot.http://www.ket.org/Trips/coal/agsmm/agsmmhow.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating No that is not the Church's official doctrine. Your very unofficial interpretation of our doctrine is ludicrous.
thesometimesaint Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Have you ever heard of the RATE project? Do a google search. The ICR is not a scientific organization.
Rob Osborn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 The ICR is not a scientific organization.The people who did the project were scientists.
Rob Osborn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 No organic on this earth is younger than 7000 years? You're a hoot.http://www.ket.org/Trips/coal/agsmm/agsmmhow.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K–Ar_dating No that is not the Church's official doctrine. Your very unofficial interpretation of our doctrine is ludicrous.It is official. The churches official doctrine is that there was no death on the earth beforr 6-7 thousand years ago.
thesometimesaint Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 The people who did the project were scientists. Not so much.http://www.icr.org/research/rate/
thesometimesaint Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) It is official. The churches official doctrine is that there was no death on the earth beforr 6-7 thousand years ago. Incorrect that is BRM ideas not the Church's. Ps; http://cpms.byu.edu/MP/research.html Edited March 20, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Ahab Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 The global flood demands answers and they are there if we can look at with the right logic. Right, and you did make a good point that things were different back then than they are today, like how all the inhabited land was in one landmass and how there weren't the same mountains we have now, but when you start suggesting there were dinosaurs on the arc, and you don't correctly convey an understanding of what the giants were, then you're not looking at it with the right logic.
Ahab Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Everything from your car doors to radioactive decay has an error rate(Tolerance). That is why there are +/- numbers after them. The tolerances within radioactive carbon dating are well known and allowed for. To claim that the earth is only 7000 years old is ludicrous in the extreme. The Atomic clock that our satellites are set to is accurate to 10−9 seconds per day.It's not that the Earth is 7000 years old. That number is only relative to the time Adam and Eve left the garden in Eden. We don't know, and aren't told, how long it took to create the Earth but we do know it wasn't created from new matter, or at least not all of it, and we also don't know where the parts came from. So the ages of the various elements of the Earth don't tell us how old the creation of this Earth is. 2
JLHPROF Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 It's not that the Earth is 7000 years old. That number is only relative to the time Adam and Eve left the garden in Eden. We don't know, and aren't told, how long it took to create the Earth but we do know it wasn't created from new matter, or at least not all of it, and we also don't know where the parts came from. So the ages of the various elements of the Earth don't tell us how old the creation of this Earth is. This exactly. The earth elements can be far older than 7000 years and the earth itself can still be 7000 years old. Joseph Smith claimed that God did not make the earth“out of nothing; for it is contrary to a rashanall mind & reason that a something could be brought from a nothing.....this earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live.” (”Rough Stone Rolling”; Bushman, p. 421; from “Words of Joseph”, journal entries of first-hand witnesses)
Anijen Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 IMO I do not believe the earth is 7000 years old or that it was made from old parts and put together 7000 years ago. I believe the earth to be billions of years old (5-6 billion). Many LDS scientist believe this as well.
Rob Osborn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Not so much.http://www.icr.org/research/rate/Humm... are you smoking crack?Read it again.Here- The group identified itself with the acronym RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. The RATE team included the following scientists and scholars: Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. Soft rock geologist John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysicist Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D. Hebrew scholar Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. Physicist Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D. Physicist D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physicist Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Hard rock geologist Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Meteorologist, Chairman Edited March 20, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 IMO I do not believe the earth is 7000 years old or that it was made from old parts and put together 7000 years ago. I believe the earth to be billions of years old (5-6 billion). Many LDS scientist believe this as well.I believe the matter that makes the earth is eternal- has always existed in one element form or another. Because of that I think its kind of ridiculous to even put an age on the individual matter. As for when the planet came into being I am not even concerened nor care if it was 10,000 years ago or 10 billion years ago. For me, and where the doctrine of the church comes into play is the age of life and death on this earth. The churches position is that it was in the last 7,000 years and I also agree with this teaching. 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 It's not that the Earth is 7000 years old. That number is only relative to the time Adam and Eve left the garden in Eden. We don't know, and aren't told, how long it took to create the Earth but we do know it wasn't created from new matter, or at least not all of it, and we also don't know where the parts came from. So the ages of the various elements of the Earth don't tell us how old the creation of this Earth is. Theologically I have no problem with a garden within the lone and dreary world. Chemically we are star stuff, just not from our star. The very Iron in our blood was made billions of years ago when an even more ancient star exploded. Radioactive decay is a very accurate means to determine age.
Recommended Posts