Exploring geology a bit . . . apparently some rocks MUCH YOUNGER than previously though

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110810132903.htm

The above finding is not the least bit surprising to me. I predict that this trend will continue until old earth geologists are forced to rethink the age of ALL the layers. The universe is just more complex and younger than many scientists want to believe . . . because of MATERIALISM. There is just too much that can’t be explained by a big bang . . . the list is very long.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Exploring geology a bit . . . apparently some rocks MUCH YOUNGER than previously though”

  1. cognitivediscopants Says:

    I think you may be misreading the article. The finding was that the earth’s mantle recycles material faster than was previously assumed. But this really has nothing to do with the accuracy of the dates of “all the layers”. Nor does it suggest that the earth is young. In fact, the geologists found evidence of rocks re-emerging after 500 million years.

  2. mike00000000001 Says:

    Well, I would not call it the ultimate proof of a young earth, but I do think making the rocks younger is moving in the direction I expected it to. In fact I predict that with better dating techniques things will get progressively younger. We need better measurements of time as it is now because most of the means we use are not that stable over long periods.

    • cognitivediscopants Says:

      Again, I don’t think you’re correctly interpreting the article. The finding that rocks recycle faster than expected doesn’t cast the least bit of doubt on the age of any existing strata. When geologists date rocks, they are measuring how long it’s been since the rock was formed. The article you linked to spoke only to the length of time it takes for material to resurface after it has disappeared from the earth’s surface due to tectonic movement. Two different things altogether.
      It is hard to imagine how better dating techniques could result in rejection of an old earth. The difference between 4.54 billion and 6000 years is staggering. It’s like arguing that with improvements in ruler technology, we will eventually discover that the distance between New York and Los Angeles is actually only 17 feet.

  3. mike00000000001 Says:

    And this proves that one point clearly. So I hope we find better dating methods. I’m at a point in my life where I would consider myself a rational creationist theist. I expect the evidence to continue to shed doubt on old earth thinking. And I believe that is what it is starting to do. The more I explore macro-evolution old earth theory . .. the more I doubt it. I’m actually surprised because I didn’t really expect that.

  4. mike00000000001 Says:

    When you look very carefully at genetics, the fossil record, astronomy . . . .. evolution has difficulty explaining a number of things . . . a great deal of difficulty. I started to feel like I was having nothing but faith in evolution . . . not what a rational brain wants. My rational brain wanted conclusive evidence of macro evolution . . . but I found none . . .because when you consider ALL of the evidence together it makes more sense to say that life spontaneously appeared here. I know this may seem strange to you. It did to me at first . .. but the truth is shocking.

  5. mike00000000001 Says:

    Only one only objection cognitive, dating rocks is not as clear cut as measuring distances on a map. You presume it to be quite obvious when in fact it is not at all the same. The dating methods used are seriously flawed. They think comets are 4.5 billion years old in spite of the fact that they are decaying quite rapidly.

    • cognitivediscopants Says:

      Mike, you have received some bad information on the issue of comets. Comets that approach us do indeed disintegrate because of their proximity to the sun. But their source is either the Keiper belt or the Oort Cloud which are so far out that they can last for billions of years. It’s only when something disturbs their orbit that they get flung towards the sun and start to burn up. There remains a virtually limitless supply of new comets where those came from. No one believes that the comets decaying around us have been circling the inner solar system for 4.5 billion years.
      This argument is typical of creationist attacks on dating methods. They assume a constant rate of decay in situations where the decay rate is anything but constant. Atomic decay, on the other hand, is constant. That’s why radiometric dating is reliable.

  6. mike00000000001 Says:

    Ok, I’m not exactly sure which decay rates you are referring to that are not constant. And even if atomic decay is constant then how do they know they are using the right scale?? Is it measured on the right scale?? How do I know a segment of time by this measurement is not 1 year instead of 100,000 years?? I will admit some ignorance here as I need to do more research on this method. In fact, I’ll make that my next post. I do remember instances of flawed dates via this technique and I will find those again. Atomic decay should be an interesting topic for me to research and I will do just that. I can’t say whether or not the facts line up with what you are saying just yet. I doubt it, but we shall see.

  7. cognitivediscopants Says:

    Typical examples of rates that are not constant (but are inappropriately used in order to suggest a young earth) are the salinization of the ocean, the shrinkage of the sun, or the decay of comets that have only recently entered the inner solar system. In each case, it is wrong to assume that the current rate can simply be extrapolated backwards for reasons that are well understood.

    Here is a helpful place to start if you are going to research radiometric dating and decay rates:http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe
    I look forward to hearing what you find.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: