Talk:Deep time

We've been needing this one for a long time. Might want to see Gould's "Times arrow.."--PalMD-yada yada 14:08, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Light from faraway stars
Apologies if I'm being dense, but how does the presence of light from faraway stars serve as evidence that the Earth is old? I can see how it shows that the Universe is old, but not necessarily the Earth itself.
 * A fair point but it sort of misses the point: If the universe popped into existence and has been expanding ever since (big bang) and the light from stars many millions of light-years away is just now getting "here", then the model being used is the model for how the earth came to be. If one supposes that, yes, light from millions of light-years away is getting here only now, it requires a paradigm shift in thought (geez I'll say it, doublethink) to further suppose the Earth was only here for oh, say 100,000 years. 10:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ


 * I have to agree. The entry says "... Earth is millions or billions of years old," not Universe. This makes the light thing meaningless. 184.100.240.193 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The age of the universe gives an upper limit to the age of the Earth, so an old universe is a prerequisite for an old Earth. And most YECs (all YECs?) do claim that the universe is as old as the Earth, for some reason. I agree that the article needs to be clarified and expanded. I think that the same ground has been covered elsewhere, so at least a "See also" section can be quickly populated with links.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Genesis says the stars were created after the earth so if the universe is old Genesis is wrong. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No shit. Тy JFBAA 14:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this worth expanding?
We risk duplication what's in Evidence against a recent creation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Тy JFBAA 14:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With help I managed something that's perhaps slightly better than a redirect. Still the redirect would be to a gold standard article and this article is a bit stubbish.  Anyone want to improve it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me. YOU managed something?  sorry to be petty, but don't take credit for other people's work.  --[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot RIP original "muahahahah".  1...2....3...4...muahahahahah  16:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it better than a redirect when you left it? The redirect would be to here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Refute
Scientists have accepted the use of half-life decay rates to be in millions or billions years for radiometric dating method or radioactive dating method. Some would suggest that Noah’s ark should have caused the rocks to have accelerate decay and that would have caused the age of the earth to be misled in millions or billions years. Discuss.

Noah’s ark that had appeared in the past might not cause the rocks to decay accelerate for the following reasons:

a)Some rocks that have been created in the very beginning would be as hard as diamond so much so that it is impossible for these rocks to decay. As these rocks would be impossible to decay, the appearance of Noah’s ark would not cause any damage of these rocks. As these rocks could be as hard as diamond, it is irrational to suggest their decay rates to be in millions or billions of years since it would be impossible for them to decay in the first place and that the decay rate for them should be set at 0. To give the high value of decay rates, such as, billion years, for hard rocks in which they are impossible to decay, Scientists have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth to billions years unrealistically.

b)Only the soft rocks that would have created in the very beginning would decay rapidly instead of the hard one. Scientists might have observed the change of shape of the rocks and comment that they should be the cause of decaying rocks. However, they should consider also the change of shape of rocks could be the result of soft rocks instead of hard since the hard would be impossible for them to decay. Besides, the hard rocks that could have been created initially would look like the current shape. As these hard rocks could never decay since they are as solid as diamond, there is no way for Noah’s ark or wind or whatever to cause them to decay. As these hard rocks could not decay, it is irrational to suggest that the incidence of Noah’s ark would have any influence upon the shape of hard rocks.

The reliability of radiometric dating method that has been adopted by scientists to determine the age of fossils as well as the earth would be in question on the condition of the possible existence of rocks that would be as hard as diamond so much so that there is no way for them to decay. If that would be so, there should be no reason for scientists to suggest that the decay rates of the rocks should be million or billion years since they would have been created in the beginning in such a way that there is no way for them to decay. If that could be so, to insist the value of decaying rates for hard rocks with millions or billions of years would simply be unrealistic and unreliable.

The following is the list of isotopes that have been used by scientists to estimate the age of the earth as well as fossils:

Samarium-147 (parent); Neodymium-143 (daughter); decaying rate: 106 billion years Rubidium-87 (parent); Strontium-87 (daughter); decaying rate: 50 billion years Uranium-238 (parent); Lead-206 (daughter); decaying rate: 4.47 billion years Potassium-40 (parent); Argon-40 (daughter); decaying rate: 1.3 billion years Uranium-235 (parent); Lead-207 (daughter); decaying rate: 704 million years Uranium-234 (parent); Thorium-230 (daughter); decaying rate: 80,000 years Carbon-14 (parent); Nitrogen-14 (daughter); decaying rate: 5,730 years

Using radioactive dating method to date the age of fossils and the earth would be unreliable. Let’s take Samarium-147 (parent) and Neodymium-143 (daughter) to be one of the examples from above for illustration.

a)What if Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning instead of it would be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, it is irrational to link up the relationship between them and to comment that Neodymium-143 was the transformation of Samarium-147 and to establish its half-life decaying rate to be 106 billion years.

b)What if both Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created as hard as diamond that it would be impossible for them to decay, it is irrational to conclude that Neodymium-143 should be the daughter of Samarium-147 and to suggest that the decaying rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. This is by virtue of the half life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 should be set at 0 at the absence of the possibility of decaying.

c)How could scientists have established the relationship between these items and comment that Neodymium-143 should have decayed from Samarium-147 instead of other source or material or substance? There would be a possibility that Neodymium-143 might decay and turn into another form of material instead of Samarium-147.

d)How do the scientists derive the decay rate for each material and to ensure its accuracy of decay rate? For instance, the Scientists have suggested the half-life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. Why should the decay rate be 106 billion years instead of a few thousand years? How do they get this figure or whether they would have plucked from sky since nobody could live so long so as to witness this would come true for the transformation?

e) When the scientists suggested the decay rates for various materials, such as, from Argon-40 to Potassium-40 or from Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143, how do they arrange in such a way that the decay rate for Argon-40 to Potassium-40 would be lower than Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143 and not the other way round?

d)As nobody could live millions or billions of years to witness whether Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143, the reliability of radioactive dating method by means of the use of isotopes is questionable.

All the above have placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question especially the setting of decay rate in million or billions years have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth unreasonably to billion years.

This turned up in Liberapedia, and aparently refers to the webshite,  http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html  I need help from people who understand radioactivity etc better than I do to refute this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hard to refute as there seems to be a great deal of Not even wrong. Kleinzeit (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

it's been dealt with, thanks. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)