Anyone know for sure how old the earth is?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I never said 2.

I've ALWAYS maintained that the greatest evidence for an old earth id the fact that multiple tests give the same result.

For example, this is a good paper that I've posted in the past.

Title: The age and accretion of the Earth
Author(s): Zhang YX
Source: EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS 59 (1-4): 235-263 NOV 2002
Document Type: Review ...[text shortened]... rain the accretion history of the earth. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

The multiple tests use differing types of assumptions?

Give me 20 independent tests using different types of assumptions, or I shall have to maintain that you are also a lying ignoramus.

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
How do you KNOW that the half-life of an element is x? You ASSUME it is x using the CURRENT RATE OF DECAY. But you do NOT KNOW that the current rate of decay has been the same for the past x billion years...

For all those other than Phuzudaka who seems intent on doing little more that insulting anyone who proves him wrong, (with poorly thought up insults I might add), let me explain how we can determine the consistency of the rate of decay.

1. The halflife of an element is a direct consequence of the laws of physics.
2. If the laws of physics have varied over time then it will affect the half lives of different elements in different amounts.
3. Given a sample which has two radio active elements, if the sample gives the same date for both elements then it confirms that the halflives have not varied as such a variation would result in two different results for the two elements.
4. Even if the halflives are not dependent on the laws of physics but some other variable, unless that variable affects different elements halflives in exactly the same way then the result still holds true.

For dates that are young enough to allow comparison of other dating methods such as ice cores/tree rings etc etc which have nothing to do with halflives, a comparison of a halflife based dating method and another dating method would proove that either both methods are accurate or there is some influence that affects both methods in an exactly equal amount the chances of which are so mindbogglingly improbable that it could only happen in the "hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"

Originally posted by twhitehead
For all those other than Phuzudaka who seems intent on doing little more that insulting anyone who proves him wrong, (with poorly thought up insults I might add), let me explain how we can determine the consistency of the rate of decay.

1. The halflife of an element is a direct consequence of the laws of physics.
2. If the laws of physics have varied ...[text shortened]... o mindbogglingly improbable that it could only happen in the "hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"

Someone once said that if you feel bad about an insult it shows that you probably deserved it.

Before I tackle the rest of your post, would you mind stating which laws of physics determine the half life of an element?

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
The multiple tests use differing types of assumptions?

Give me 20 independent tests using different types of assumptions, or I shall have to maintain that you are also a lying ignoramus.

I can see how open minded you are by that statement. Do you by any chance know what it means to have independent verification?
Your obsession with assumtions shows you have never studied the discipline, you come off as an uneducated boof who can only spout one line: Asumptions, asumptions. Why don't you try and acually look at the referances already sited? Oh, I forgot, you already are such an expert you can give blanket condemnations.

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
Someone once said that if you feel bad about an insult it shows that you probably deserved it.

Before I tackle the rest of your post, would you mind stating which laws of physics determine the half life of an element?

There you go again. Why can't you just google in 'Half life" and the nearest wikopia article will tell you all about it, for instance the weak force and the electroweak force is what causes radioactivity and subsequent mutation of say, U238 eventually becomes lead after an extraordinarily long time which can be used as one of dozens of such changes as clocks of the past. Of course you can't get past 'Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions. Why don't you just look at the first three letters of the word to describe your condition?

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
[b]The decay constants would differ by varying amounts, if your argument was right, and they'd give commensurately different answers.

How do you KNOW that the half-life of an element is x? You ASSUME it is x using the CURRENT RATE OF DECAY. But you do NOT KNOW that the current rate of decay has been the same for the past x billion years...

Of cou ...[text shortened]... ou use the same type of circular reasoning for all the different types of radioactive elements.[/b]

What EVIDENCE do you have that it has varied? It would require the laws of physics to change, and you haven't yet described how that'd occur.

As has been stated before, we can use multiple methods to date the same material. If the decay constants had changed, the two methods would give different results (because the decay constants would change by different (relative) amounts). They do not.

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
Someone once said that if you feel bad about an insult it shows that you probably deserved it.

Before I tackle the rest of your post, would you mind stating which laws of physics determine the half life of an element?

Whilst you are at google. Google "isochron".

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can see how open minded you are by that statement. Do you by any chance know what it means to have independent verification?
Your obsession with assumtions shows you have never studied the discipline, you come off as an uneducated boof who can only spout one line: Asumptions, asumptions. Why don't you try and acually look at the referances already sited? Oh, I forgot, you already are such an expert you can give blanket condemnations.

As you seem to know everything, why don't you explain who measured the mass of the original isotopes a couple million years ago?

Originally posted by sonhouse
There you go again. Why can't you just google in 'Half life" and the nearest wikopia article will tell you all about it, for instance the weak force and the electroweak force is what causes radioactivity and subsequent mutation of say, U238 eventually becomes lead after an extraordinarily long time which can be used as one of dozens of such changes as clock ...[text shortened]... Why don't you just look at the first three letters of the word to describe your condition?

For a problem to be solvable by simultaneous equations there must be as many independent equations as there are unknowns. The unknowns are say the original 87Sr-86Sr ratio for each sample and the age of each sample. Each sample gives one equation, but introduces two additional unknowns. Regardless of the number of samples, there are never enough equations to cover all the unknowns. These problems MUST be resolved by the assumptions.

Or maybe you know better and could enlighten me on exactly how you validate the assumptions mathematically?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What EVIDENCE do you have that it has varied? It would require the laws of physics to change, and you haven't yet described how that'd occur.

As has been stated before, we can use multiple methods to date the same material. If the decay constants had changed, the two methods would give different results (because the decay constants would change by different (relative) amounts). They do not.

I gave you heaps of evidence and you just ignored it.

I am still waiting for your 20 different methods that use different assumptions. Using the same faulty assumptions gives you the same wrong answer.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Whilst you are at google. Google "isochron".

Yip. See for yourself:

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
For a problem to be solvable by simultaneous equations there must be as many independent equations as there are unknowns. The unknowns are say the original 87Sr-86Sr ratio for each sample and the age of each sample. Each sample gives one equation, but introduces two additional unknowns. Regardless of the number of samples, there are never enough equations ...[text shortened]... u know better and could enlighten me on exactly how you validate the assumptions mathematically?

Er, what part of 'independent analysis' that you don't understand?
There is no simultaneous equation for all the differant methods, just independent lines of research all designed to answer a question, in this case, the age of the earth, but you don't really care about that, you are not actually interested in a true indepenently determined age of the earth, just tearing down any evidence that doensn't meet your predetermined dogma. If you were really interested in the science behind the age of the earth you would actually study it for yourself and not constantly demanding WE educate you. Look it up for yourself. Of course that won't be happening, will it?
I see your source is the creationist crap that has already been refuted.

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
I gave you heaps of evidence and you just ignored it.

I am still waiting for your 20 different methods that use different assumptions. Using the same faulty assumptions gives you the same wrong answer.

No you didn't.

Why not tackle the paper abstract I posted. That lists about 10. I can get a few more if you'd really like.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No you didn't.

Why not tackle the paper abstract I posted. That lists about 10. I can get a few more if you'd really like.

Don't worry, he won't read it, its not his MO. Since he already knows how the world was formed and how old it is he doesn't need actual science. He doesn't care a lick about science, only in tearing it down to support his ingrained obsessions.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can see how open minded you are by that statement. Do you by any chance know what it means to have independent verification?
Your obsession with assumtions shows you have never studied the discipline, you come off as an uneducated boof who can only spout one line: Asumptions, asumptions. Why don't you try and acually look at the referances already sited? Oh, I forgot, you already are such an expert you can give blanket condemnations.

It should be simple, I'd like to see 20 independent tests upon an
item all using different methods all coming up with the same answer
too. Is that available or not? If it isn't than I'd say we can lay that to
rest that we need to redefine what the claims really are.
Kelly