Where does the number 4.5 billion come from?

[DutchLiam84]

So a YEC, meaning you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Well, there are trees that are 10.000 years old...blows your 6000 years right out of the water. Dendrochronology can go back 13.000 years. Ice core chronology goes back 550.000 years. This is without any form of radiometric dating. Being a YEC is a very dishonest position that can't possibly be honestly defended by anyone. Even if the 4.55 byo is wrong.....the Earth is still at least 100 times older than you believe. Your thoughts on that?

 

[Avatra1]

Is your Talk Origins link peer-reviewed?

This is an interesting turn of phrase from somebody 'completely new to science', I must say. The spidey-sense is tingling.

Oh Oh Oh!

I know a better one!

Is any of the "material" from creationists (which he deemed to be "so goood!") peer-reviewed?

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[sturmgewehr]

I am such a noob when it comes to Geology and Paleontology.

I would be so happy if I had more time to do more research on these subject.

 

[Inferno]

I am such a noob when it comes to Geology and Paleontology.

I would be so happy if I had more time to do more research on these subject.

Just ask about what you don't understand, I'm sure we can help out.

 

[nudger1964]

something im really not clear on, is of that 4.5 billion yrs, at what point can we say the earth was a body of roughly the current mass and not accumulating planetoids?

 

[Inferno]

something im really not clear on, is of that 4.5 billion yrs, at what point can we say the earth was a body of roughly the current mass and not accumulating planetoids?

The accretion process itself is said to be rather fast, on the scale of 3 Million years, that's million as in 10^6. Sadly, the research paper itself is only available in abstract form, so we'd need someone to look that up. This is in line with other papers I have found, who are surprised! to note that there are old! proto-planetary discs that are 25 million years old.
So the initial accretion was very, very fast indeed. However, it doesn't stop there. Over the next <100 million years, planets and planetary embryos bumped together, adding further mass to the planets. (See abstract paper above, apparently)

So all in all, the formation of planets took no more than 100 million years in total.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I interpret that as an abstract to a paper that we have now found, read, and understood to not have done that which you claimed it did. Your claim that Patterson was discredited was wrong, now it just looks like you're grasping at straws. Be man enough to admit when you are shown to be at error.

A "paper"? There was no paper involved. This was a pdf. Someone found a digital pdf and digitally emailed it to us. There was no paper. Please admit your error. And I'm not grasping at straws. I'm not even sure what straws you're talking about. Did anyone else see any straws?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Given that I sent you the paper, what do you say now that both Isoletus and I have furnished you with an answer? What do you say about the paper? I'm currently at another computer, but I believe it's figure 2 where the newly dated ages are. Now that you know that they propose a maximum difference of 230 million years and now that you know that later papers corrected for that and again honed in on 4.55GY, what do you say about the age of the earth? How old is the earth?

Thanks for sending the paper. I've only read the first paragraph. I will attempt to read the rest, but I'm a little worried I won't understand it. I'm trying to get together with a guy who will understand it and can explain it to me. Not sure there's much more you can ask from a creationist. So is the consensus answer to the OP that the 4.5 billion number comes from Patterson? Just want to make sure I haven't missed something.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

So a YEC, meaning you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Well, there are trees that are 10.000 years old...blows your 6000 years right out of the water. Dendrochronology can go back 13.000 years. Ice core chronology goes back 550.000 years. This is without any form of radiometric dating. Being a YEC is a very dishonest position that can't possibly be honestly defended by anyone. Even if the 4.55 byo is wrong.....the Earth is still at least 100 times older than you believe. Your thoughts on that?

There are no trees that are 10,000 years old. Your understanding of dendrochronology is incorrect. Trees can and do make more than one tree ring in a year.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Oh Oh Oh!

I know a better one!

Is any of the "material" from creationists (which he deemed to be "so goood!") peer-reviewed?

Yes, there are creationist peer-reviewed scientific journals.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

In case anyone missed it, I didn't start this thread claiming any sort of knowledge on the topic. I asked an honest question and I'll be the first to admit that everyone here was right. If you don't want creationists on the site, just ask me to leave and I will. If you ask me, I would guess that everyone knows a little more about the age of the earth thanks to my question. You're welcome.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

A "paper"? There was no paper involved. This was a pdf. Someone found a digital pdf and digitally emailed it to us. There was no paper. Please admit your error.

:lol:

This is why people laugh at creationist.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

:lol:

This is why people laugh at creationist.

I agree with you! I'm just "answering a fool according to his folly." Prov. 26:5

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

There are no trees that are 10,000 years old. Your understanding of dendrochronology is incorrect. Trees can and do make more than one tree ring in a year.

Citation please. As an anthropologist, I find this claim very interesting.

:lol:

This is why people laugh at creationist.

I agree with you! I'm just "answering a fool according to his folly." Prov. 26:5

The PDF you were sent is a scientific paper. Thus, when you say what paper, you are coming off as very ignorant. That is why it is funny and why people will laugh at you.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Citation please. As an anthropologist, I find this claim very interesting.

http://creation.com/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

If I were interested in this subject, I would probably start here:

http://ltrr.arizona.edu/about/treerings


You could email one of the Dendrochronologists. I'm sure they can recommend additional documentation on the subject.

Here, I will make very easy for you: You have many to choose from:

http://ltrr.arizona.edu/people/faculty

If you are really bored, you could start here:

http://ltrr.arizona.edu/biblio

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Citation please. As an anthropologist, I find this claim very interesting.

http://creation.com/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines

Your link leads to an article, Evidence for multiple rings growth per year in Bristlecone Pines, written in 2006 by Mark Matthews. One would think Mathews was an archaeologist or perhaps a botanist, but no. According to CMI, Matthews is a Nuclear Engineer that worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleaning up hazardous waste and treating wastewater. It seems he has no real credentials for dendrochronolgy.

A fact made clear by a quick look at Talk.Origins' An Index to Creationist Claims. Claim CB501 explicitly handles the claim Matthews makes about bristlecone pines having multiple rings. This includes the fact that we have multiple dating methods giving us roughly the same dates. Again, we come upon the problem of independent dating methods verifying each other. Consistency, something real science has and pseudoscience (creationism) can never achieve

Would you like to try again? Perhaps this time you could cite some evidence that has not already been debunked.

 

[Inferno]

In case anyone missed it, I didn't start this thread claiming any sort of knowledge on the topic. I asked an honest question and I'll be the first to admit that everyone here was right. If you don't want creationists on the site, just ask me to leave and I will. If you ask me, I would guess that everyone knows a little more about the age of the earth thanks to my question. You're welcome.

We don't want you to leave, we want you to admit your mistake. There's this guy with quite a funny name... Inferno or something, not sure. He clarified the issue and Isoletus cross-checked it. Later on, that Inferno dude asked you a direct question, one you still have to answer. I'll re-post it:

Given that I sent you the paper, what do you say now that both Isoletus and I have furnished you with an answer? What do you say about the paper? I'm currently at another computer, but I believe it's figure 2 where the newly dated ages are. Now that you know that they propose a maximum difference of 230 million years and now that you know that later papers corrected for that and again honed in on 4.55GY, what do you say about the age of the earth? How old is the earth?

Thanks for sending the paper. I've only read the first paragraph. I will attempt to read the rest, but I'm a little worried I won't understand it. I'm trying to get together with a guy who will understand it and can explain it to me. Not sure there's much more you can ask from a creationist. So is the consensus answer to the OP that the 4.5 billion number comes from Patterson? Just want to make sure I haven't missed something.

Just to explain one thing, this ^^^^^ is something a lot of creationists do: Only read the abstract, don't bother to read the rest of the text. I'm glad you're taking the time to read it, but I thought I should make you aware of this.

Now as for the "4.5 billion number": Yes, Patterson was indeed the first to come up with it but it has since been tested, subjected to scrutiny and reviewed by other scientists. As I pointed out, there is a general consensus among scientists that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old.

So once again: Are you willing to admit error?

 

[Gnug215]

In case anyone missed it, I didn't start this thread claiming any sort of knowledge on the topic. I asked an honest question and I'll be the first to admit that everyone here was right. If you don't want creationists on the site, just ask me to leave and I will. If you ask me, I would guess that everyone knows a little more about the age of the earth thanks to my question. You're welcome.

It's good to admit ignorance on a topic. I'll be the first to admit it as well, on many topics. Asking honest quesitons is the way to go, and not just from people you know will give you the answers you want, so it's good that you've gone outside your comfort-sphere.

But, and I don't want this to come off as a huge argument from authority, you have to realize that the people who are actually out there doing the hands-on research are the scientists, and they're gonna be writing long and "boring" papers that are hard to understand for laymen like me and you. But these scientists really, really do know better. Many of them are really smarter than you and I combined, and they're a thousands times more knowledgable on their specialized area than you and I. It would be arrogant of us to assume to be able to just figure this stuff out that people have spent years studying and working with trying to grasp.
I mean, is there something you're really good at? I assume there is. But have you ever tried to perhaps teach someone your skill(s)? Someone who is basically starting from scratch? Have you noticed how many miles from your level of understanding they might be?
For example, I used to be pretty good with some computer games, like Doom and such, many years ago, and at one point my gf wanted me to teach her a bit. And it was really hard for me, because the motor-skills involved in just moving the mouse around in a stable fashion is something I've honed over hundreds, thousands of hours of playing. Her inability to have the same amount of control over the basics ("proper" mouse control) meant that I couldn't really teach her how to be good at the game, and I couldn't show her some of the tricks I knew, because those depend on knowing the basics, which I of course assume to be a given. I hope this analogy makes sense, and the situation is highly analogous to science and scientists.

And the conclusions that these scientists come to are in so many respects entirely contrary to what creationists come to.

And while very, very, very few scientists (out of millions) are creationists, quite a few of them are Christian, and so if you suspect the entire scientific establishment of simply being biased, or even dishonest, then I think you have a situation that is very difficult to explain.

Now, as any user, you're quite welcome here from the outset. This site isn't an atheist or anti-creationist site as such, and we have users with varying beliefs on here,
The problem really comes when someone espouses their beliefs and in the process goes against established science, withOUT any reasonable evidence to support their claims.
No one on this site really accepts creationist "evidence", because for the most part, we have heard it all before, and it's always (in our experience) been thoroughly debunked. Much of said evidence comes from creationists dredging through papers already written (that is, in the least bad cases papers are actually used. In more egregious cases, stuff just seems made up.), where a "selective reading" has been made, and presented as evidence that in most cases doesn't even support creationism, but at best casts a little doubt on the already established science.
Creationist scientists are very seldom doing actual research and field work, but just tailing on the work of scientists who are doing all the work - and then skewering their results.

And then you get the inevitable creationist preaching of such results, as if one little questionable detail in one scientific paper casts doubt on ALL of the rest of science, whether it comes from creationist talk shows, YouTube videos or from forum posts.

This is the experience most of us have of creationists. It is almost always the same, and we've experienced it hundreds, if not thousands, of times. And as a result, we've become somewhat skeptical and even cynical of ANY creationist who comes along. This is unfortunate, but an understandable result of our experience.
So the lack of patience and friendliness you may have found on this board is not really anything against you personally (trust me, we've had creationist around here who were much more annoying, arrogant, dishonest and dislikable than anything anyone here may have expressed as perceived off of you.)

I think what you need in order for us to accept creationism is not one or two pieces of evidence, but years and years of a continuing stream of evidence that not just controverts current theories of evolution, cosmology, physics, geology, etc. but also actively, positively supports creationism, whichever form that creationism may take.

That was a bit long, but I hope it made sense.

 

[Laurens]

I interpret that as an abstract to a paper that we have now found, read, and understood to not have done that which you claimed it did. Your claim that Patterson was discredited was wrong, now it just looks like you're grasping at straws. Be man enough to admit when you are shown to be at error.

A "paper"? There was no paper involved. This was a pdf. Someone found a digital pdf and digitally emailed it to us. There was no paper. Please admit your error. And I'm not grasping at straws. I'm not even sure what straws you're talking about. Did anyone else see any straws?

I see lots of straws there...

Do you understand that scientific papers don't necessarily literally have to be on paper? :lol: