tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post2770625654888940444..comments2023-10-30T08:13:43.200-07:00Comments on Questioning Answers In Genesis: My (unsolicited) advice for Bill Nye: Don't teach the dichotomy!Chemostrat1646http://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-53728663841719806212014-02-05T15:59:12.963-08:002014-02-05T15:59:12.963-08:00Another important detail: the meteorite date of 4....Another important detail: the meteorite date of 4.5 billion years does not come from *a* meteor, but rather 86 meteors (at the time of the original publication; the number is higher now). In other words, the date is robust in that it is repeatable.Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-47080545003126602052014-02-05T12:55:29.337-08:002014-02-05T12:55:29.337-08:00Unfortunately, Ham wasn't very honest on this ...Unfortunately, Ham wasn't very honest on this point. Most of the "scientific methods of dating" to which Ham was referring don't actually exist or don't support his claim at all, and I've discussed many of them on this blog already. If you had any specifically in mind, I could show you what I mean.<br /><br />He was correct that the accepted age of the Earth (~4.56 billion years) derives mainly from dating of meteorites. There's nothing wrong with this, so long as the meteorites are indeed the same age as the earth and derived from the same material from which our solar system form. But still, it's only half true. The first time an age of 4.5 billion years was obtained, a Rb-Sr isochron was constructed from numerous chondritic meteorite fragments. This date was confirmed by a Sm-Nd isochron—unrelated geochemical system, same results. This tells us that the dating methods are indeed robust, contrary to Ham's claim that there are conflicts. An additional isochron is constructed using the U-Pb system, not merely from meteorite material, but also from Earth materials. Therefore, samples of the Earth do go into the final calculation of ~4.5 billion years.<br /><br />Although no rock on Earth is dated exactly at 4.5 billion years (why would we ever expect that?), we do have samples of zircon minerals that date to 4.2–4.4 billion years old (from Australia, no less; thanks for staying honest, Mr. Ham). The fact that Earth materials approach 4.5 billion years, but never actually reach it, confirms the meteorite-based age of 4.5 billion years for the solar system and for the Earth itself.Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-58866194887029054452014-02-05T07:38:14.173-08:002014-02-05T07:38:14.173-08:00As Ham pointed out last night, there are many othe...As Ham pointed out last night, there are many other scientific methods of dating and most of them support an age of the earth orders of magnitude shorter than the common consensus. And the 4B+ age that we are often fed comes from a meteor!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-78815161223989813552014-02-04T21:56:35.060-08:002014-02-04T21:56:35.060-08:00I appreciate your feedback! Many underestimate tha...I appreciate your feedback! Many underestimate that persuasiveness, so it often goes unstudied and unchallenged.Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-43269159806395467292014-02-04T21:55:41.480-08:002014-02-04T21:55:41.480-08:00Yes, and a debate without cross-examination is har...Yes, and a debate without cross-examination is hardly a debate worth watching. I'll be commenting on this soon. Thanks for your input.Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-16127331799459908292014-02-04T18:58:25.694-08:002014-02-04T18:58:25.694-08:00Unfortunately, the format didn't allow for the...Unfortunately, the format didn't allow for the sort of back-and-forth required to debunk Ham's rubbish. Instead, with the respondent allowed the last word on any given question, it allowed Ham to make sweeping, completely false claims that there is no evidence of anything, or that evolution ignores the scientific method, etc, without having any allowed response by Mr. Nye. Unfortunately, this gives the appearance of there being no reposte to his lies, and he knew it. Too bad Mr. Nye is too much the gentleman to ignore the debate format and slam him repeatedly for his lies.enigmaticahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497161433168357897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-85379584865152505332014-02-04T09:05:33.927-08:002014-02-04T09:05:33.927-08:00This is excellent analysis of Ham's debating t...This is excellent analysis of Ham's debating tactics and of the persuasiveness that YEC arguments have for the faithful. I appreciate this very much.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441209597626674171noreply@blogger.com