Based on the layers in the crust, how old is the Earth?

[universalchiro]

Support your answer.

[bigimg]http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/ks3/webdav/site/GSL/shared/images/education_and_careers/RockCycle/Processes/Uplift/Grand%20Canyon.jpg[/bigimg]
The current belief is that it takes 100,000 to 1 million years for each layer to form. If this were true then the earth would be very old. A common mistake is to look at the rate of soil accumulation today and extrapolate that it's always been this rate. If that were the case, then there would be commingling of the soil layers from erosion, but there is not. Take a closer look and you will see that the layers are smoothly laid out with no commingling from erosion. Which means that the layers were not formed over millions of years.

How does a creationist explain the many layers? During the flood in Noah's day, the flood waters were filled with tons of soil. How did the soil get in the flood waters? Asteroid impacts, volcanic activity, fast moving tectonic plates and water burst out of the deep fountains within the deep (Genesis 7:11). The soil in the water settled according to density over the next year as the waters receded from the 40 days and 40 nights of rain.
The lack of commingling of the layers from erosion is evidence that the layers formed quickly. This is in accordance with the Biblical flood record.
=======---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=========
The common belief is that radioactive decay is constant and if it was then the earth would be billions of years old. But don't be fooled by that notion, sure the rate of decay appears constant to us, but when trauma is involved the decay rate gets accelerated substantially.

Take for example Petrified wood, allegedly suppose to take 500,000 years. Oh no, Mount Saint Helens eruption produced petrified wood in 30 years.
Take Coalification, allegedly suppose to take 20 million years. Oh no, I can make coal in a lab in 8 months with this process: wood + clay + moisture - air + 150 degrees Celsius + 8 months = 100% coal.
Take petroleum, allegedly suppose to take 50 million years. Yet Chicken byproducts and algae is converted into petroleum in 30 minutes with high heat.

Therefore, the rate of decay that scientist determine soil to be billions of years old, is flawed. Severely flawed. And how many of you have been duped to believe this lie of 4.6 billions of years old. You've been swindled. Demand you get your brain back and research for yourself.

[denominator]

Try Google. Here, I did the work for you:

ZOMG WOW SCIENCE

[KoolBak]

*busts out Quacko logic*

Since trees have a layer for every year of age, then counting the earth's layers, it stands to reason that it's four years old! *claps hands frantically*

[Dukasaur]

As usual your question demonstrates that you are either completely ignorant of science or completely dishonest. Most likely both, I suppose.

The Earth is generally accepted to be 4.55 billion years old, give or take 40 million or so, but the evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with "the layers of the crust" or any such nonsense. The age of ancient rocks is measured by lead-lead dating of meteorites. The oldest rocks produced on Earth are less than 4 billion years old, because rocks older than that were recycled back to the core through tectonic forces.

However, lunar rocks and asteroids have often remained undisturbed since the creation of the Solar system, and thus can be used for dating times before that. The big breakthrough in the field was when Clair Cameron Patterson dated the diablo canyon meteorite. The estimate has not changed very much since then, although we have been able to fine-tune it with lunar rock brought back by the Apollo astronauts. (The moon was a breakaway piece of the earth, but because it cooled much faster its surface has undergone almost no tectonic movement. Thus, rocks can be found at the surface of the moon that have been there since it formed.)

[kuthoer]

*busts out Quacko logic*

Since trees have a layer for every year of age, then counting the earth's layers, it stands to reason that it's four years old! *claps hands frantically*

Yes, I agree. Wait a minute.... Are these dog years?

[macbone]

This page has a neat rundown of the different ways the age of the Earth has been calculated: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/a ... earth.html

It goes through the aalina took of the sea, measurement of the rate of sedimentation, and other methods, before coming to radioisotope dating.

[strike wolf]

I had no idea I was older than the earth before reading this thread. Dang.

[patches70]

However, lunar rocks and asteroids have often remained undisturbed since the creation of the Solar system, and thus can be used for dating times before that. The big breakthrough in the field was when Clair Cameron Patterson dated the diablo canyon meteorite. The estimate has not changed very much since then, although we have been able to fine-tune it with lunar rock brought back by the Apollo astronauts. (The moon was a breakaway piece of the earth, but because it cooled much faster its surface has undergone almost no tectonic movement. Thus, rocks can be found at the surface of the moon that have been there since it formed.)

Don't know why you are mentioning the moon, since we ain't never been there. The moon landings were faked! Faked I tell you! That should throw a bit of doubt into the reliability of dating moon rocks. The Apollo astronauts brought back some rocks they found in the Nevada desert.
So there!

[GoranZ]

Support your answer.

[bigimg]http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/ks3/webdav/site/GSL/shared/images/education_and_careers/RockCycle/Processes/Uplift/Grand%20Canyon.jpg[/bigimg]
The current belief is that it takes 100,000 to 1 million years for each layer to form. If this were true then the earth would be very old. A common mistake is to look at the rate of soil accumulation today and extrapolate that it's always been this rate. If that were the case, then there would be commingling of the soil layers from erosion, but there is not. Take a closer look and you will see that the layers are smoothly laid out with no commingling from erosion. Which means that the layers were not formed over millions of years.

How does a creationist explain the many layers? During the flood in Noah's day, the flood waters were filled with tons of soil. How did the soil get in the flood waters? Asteroid impacts, volcanic activity, fast moving tectonic plates and water burst out of the deep fountains within the deep (Genesis 7:11). The soil in the water settled according to density over the next year as the waters receded from the 40 days and 40 nights of rain.

The lack of commingling of the layers from erosion is evidence that the layers formed quickly. This is in accordance with the Biblical flood record.

You make one huge mistake. We do not believe, we know... you believe(in lies), and there is a difference

Stories from the bible are partially true, even Noah's ark should be true story and real event for the people in the Black Sea Basin. But they are stories that are usually spiced with untrue events(something like the movies we watch today).

How wrong is the bible for the creation of the earth? A LOT... because there are man made objects made before the creation of the earth according to the bible.

[universalchiro]

Goran you get no points for bringing zero evidence to support your wild claim.

[DiM]

what's the point of having a poll?
science is based on facts not on the opinion of majority.

[DiM]

How wrong is the bible for the creation of the earth? A LOT... because there are man made objects made before the creation of the earth according to the bible.

those aren't actually older, they're made to appear older just to test your faith.
not sure if satan made them appear older to screw with god or if god himself made them appear older to screw with you.
either way if you doubt the bible you go to hell.

[GoranZ]

Goran you get no points for bringing zero evidence to support your wild claim.

Considering that your so called evidence are good as last years snow, there is no need to point out any. Actually since you reference bible and Noah's ark as source of evidence can you point out about some extinct animals like Dinosaurs, or even easier like Kangaroo. Or there were no Kangaroos when the bible was written?

How wrong is the bible for the creation of the earth? A LOT... because there are man made objects made before the creation of the earth according to the bible.

those aren't actually older, they're made to appear older just to test your faith.
not sure if satan made them appear older to screw with god or if god himself made them appear older to screw with you.
either way if you doubt the bible you go to hell.

I have no faith in gods Thus the rules by which you are afraid doesn't apply to me. Meaning I can not go to hell... but if you wish you can

[notyou2]

As usual your question demonstrates that you are either completely ignorant of science or completely dishonest. Most likely both, I suppose.

I'm going with option 1. However, he could also be incredibly gullible.

[Metsfanmax]

As usual your question demonstrates that you are either completely ignorant of science or completely dishonest. Most likely both, I suppose.

Agreed. I refuse to "vote" in this poll even though the actual age of the Earth is hardly in doubt.

Incidentally, I think it is interesting that when it comes to subjects like radioactive dating, people like UC will insist that God played with decay rates just enough to fool us; but when it comes to Lucy, they insist that there's a big conspiracy and the data is faked. It's never one or the other -- I've never seen a history-denier claim that Lucy was planted there by God to test us.

[universalchiro]

No one mentioned Radioactive decay? With all the Mensa members in this forum, I figured someone would mention Radioactive decay.
The common belief is that radioactive decay is constant and if it was then the earth would be billions of years old. But don't be fooled by that notion, sure the rate of decay appears constant to us, but when trauma is involved the decay rate gets accelerated substantially.

Take for example Petrified wood, allegedly suppose to take 500,000 years. Oh no, Mount Saint Helens eruption produced petrified wood in 30 years.
Take Coalification, allegedly suppose to take 20 million years. Oh no, I can make coal in a lab in 8 months with this process: wood + clay + moisture - air + 150 degrees Celsius + 8 months = 100% coal.
Take petroleum, allegedly suppose to take 50 million years. Yet Chicken byproducts and algae is converted into petroleum in 30 minutes with high heat.

Therefore, the rate of decay that scientist determine soil to be billions of years old, is flawed. Severely flawed. And how many of you have been duped to believe this lie of 4.6 billions of years old. You've been swindled. Demand you get your brain back and research for yourself.

[/]

It looks like three people have voted for 6,000 so far, but only the OP supported their answer as per the instructions. I don't think that's right, we need to get the truth out there! The earth has only been here for a few thousand years! So I'll share some evidence.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Here is a representation of the so called "eras" of life. It shows groups of fossils in specific layers corresponding to when their species supposedly lived. So for example, there has never been a elephant fossil found below a t-rex fossil, a pterosaur found beneath a trilobite fossil, or even a single flowering plant in the entirety of the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, or Permian period layers that allegedly comprise the Paleozoic group.

Scientists claim that this is evidence that there were lengthy periods of time in which species arose, and others became extinct. I think that it shows that specific species died in the flood at different times. All the dumb jawless fish just sat there waiting to get buried at the bottom with the seashells; lizards swam for a while, but quickly drowned, then the dinosaurs, all being super tall, kept their heads above water for a lot longer. The mammals were friends with the humans, so they all got into boats with them until their canoes overturned and piled them on top of the dinosaurs.

You'll see, they're going to be teaching this in classrooms in just a few years.

[Baron Von PWN]

/ is clearly a man of great intelect and science. I thank slash for showing me the way.

[iAmCaffeine]

Who cares?

[Metsfanmax]

No one mentioned Radioactive decay? With all the Mensa members in this forum, I figured someone would mention Radioactive decay.

It happened in literally the third reply. I suppose it's too much for you to ask to actually read Dukasaur's post.

The common belief is that radioactive decay is constant and if it was then the earth would be billions of years old. But don't be fooled by that notion, sure the rate of decay appears constant to us, but when trauma is involved the decay rate gets accelerated substantially.

Right. It's just an absolute coincidence that the several independent methods that show the Earth is over 4 billion years old all converge on the same result, because their decay rates were all corrupted in just the right fashion in each case.

No. You're wrong. (Also, I am amused that you cite petrified wood, coal, and petroleum, none of which are related to the radioactive dating we are discussing. At least pick a lie that's closer to the truth, please.)

[DiM]

Meaning I can not go to hell... but if you wish you can

i can't wait to get there.

i'm aiming to be employee of the month

[notyou2]

All converted to young earth creationism, please raise your hands.






I guess none because I can't see any hands.



UC you fail. I guess you won't get to meet the invisible sky wizard after all.

[Lord Arioch]

Why would anyone want heaven...? the chicks, the guys, the party? i think not all the fun people have gone the other way... if u belive in it which i dont!

But i think coffeyboy ( ) summed it all up pretty well: who cares? Unless u know someone whos been around for 6000-4.4 billion years he/she/it would care...maybee...

[GoranZ]

No one mentioned Radioactive decay? With all the Mensa members in this forum, I figured someone would mention Radioactive decay.
The common belief is that radioactive decay is constant and if it was then the earth would be billions of years old. But don't be fooled by that notion, sure the rate of decay appears constant to us, but when trauma is involved the decay rate gets accelerated substantially.

Take for example Petrified wood, allegedly suppose to take 500,000 years. Oh no, Mount Saint Helens eruption produced petrified wood in 30 years.
Take Coalification, allegedly suppose to take 20 million years. Oh no, I can make coal in a lab in 8 months with this process: wood + clay + moisture - air + 150 degrees Celsius + 8 months = 100% coal.
Take petroleum, allegedly suppose to take 50 million years. Yet Chicken byproducts and algae is converted into petroleum in 30 minutes with high heat.

Therefore, the rate of decay that scientist determine soil to be billions of years old, is flawed. Severely flawed. And how many of you have been duped to believe this lie of 4.6 billions of years old. You've been swindled. Demand you get your brain back and research for yourself.

Radioactive decay is too complicated for you, considering what you just wrote about it...

Last century there was one ruling class in one western nation that believed that lie told a thousand times becomes truth... unfortunately for them their lies expired and the ugly truth struck them really hard.
Eventually your lies will also expire, enjoy your time spreading them while you still can

[Jmac1026]

I've heard that the continents float around on the ocean too. Maybe these two theories are related somehow.