Posted 16 February 2011 - 12:08 AM
I found some things wrong with it, but instead of listing them I thought it might be fun to let you guys do this. And it's also good to keep up with the newest theories. Have fun.
You can copy and paste sections of the page for discussion.
Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:25 AM
Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:21 AM
Statement of belief. Relies on assumptions in radiometric dating which are thoroughly discussed by most creationists. The biggest one--that sample rocks, minerals, crystals have orignal parent isotopes that have not increased, nor decreased since the origin, or last geological event which affected the rock. And that all daughter istotopes are a product of nuclear decay. That the system has remained relatively closed enough to used as a sample.
Starting with the Earth's formation by accretion from the solar nebula 4.54 billion years ago (4.54 Ga),
Statement of belief. Again relies on uncertain radiometric dating.
the first eon in the Earth's history is called the Hadean.
No rocks on the Earth are this old - except for meteorites. During Hadean time, the Solar System was forming, probably within a large cloud of gas and dust around the sun, called an accretion disc. The relative abundance of heavier elements in the Solar System suggests that this gas and dust was derived from a supernova, or supernovas - the explosion of an old, massive star. Heavier elements are generated within stars by nuclear fusion of hydrogen, and are otherwise uncommon. We can see similar processes taking place today in so-called diffuse nebulae in this and other galaxies - such as the nebula M16, shown above left. http://www.ucmp.berk...ian/hadean.html
Where is the evidence of the moon creation by an impact? How did it arrive in stable orbit, in full rotation. If centrifugal force of rotation was responsible for it's shape, why is it not a disc?
shortly after formation of an initial crust, the proto-Earth was impacted by a smaller protoplanet, which ejected part of the mantle and crust into space and created the Moon.Â
and the oldest detrital zircon crystals in some rocks have been dated to about 4.4 Ga,
You think water might, and other elements might be able to get in or leech out?
Owing to their content of thorium and uranium, some of zircons may undergo metamictization. These processes are related to the internal damage by radiation, partially disrupt the structure of the crystal and partly explain the zircon's highly-variable properties. The density will decrease as zircon becomes more and more modified by internal radiation damage, the crystal structure is compromised and the color changes.Â http://ezinearticles...tion&id=4734035
Okay. Thanks. Then why would we use them as a measure of time? There's a ratio of isotopes found inside --not time.
In many cases, calculated zircon isotopic ages do not coincide with ages of geologic events determined from other minerals or from whole-rock analysis. To interpret the geologic validity and significance of multiple ages, and ages unsupported by independent analysis of other isotopic systems, has been the impetus for most past investigations of zircon composition.Â http://rimg.geoscien...pe2=tf_ipsecsha
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users