Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Alright, one more topic. People keep posing challenges, so i figure in response ill just keep pumping out the information.

Alright, so basically id like to talk about how we know the age of the earth. This actually may take a bit of explaining because there are...many many lines of evidence, and many details. But, perhaps i can summarize it fairly quickly, and if anyone has questions, then i can respond with more depth.

Ok so, the age of the earth is roughly 4.56 billion years old. Which may sound old, and sometimes its hard to comprehend. But once you break it down into segments with names, and you become familiar with the events that occurred throughout time, it actually becomes quite understandable.

Ok so, the earth, first off is like a cake. It has layers.

Right, so...layers of rock develop on the surface of the earth by depositional processes. You know, rivers depositing sediment and lake deposits and sediments eroding from other regions and being transported. And layers also develop from volcanism and various volcanic events. So, if i look at a layer in the earth, it may hold traits of a lake deposit. And therefore i can tell if a lake was in a certain place in the past.

xcut2.jpg

If we look at the diagram above, we can use simple principals to determine ages of rocks relative to each other. For example, A is younger than C because A could not be on top of C if C were not already under it.

or, G must be younger than B, because if B did not exist, then G could not go through it. E must be younger than G because G does not cross cut E, and therefore, G must have been eroded and overlayn by E. I must be older than C, because C contains bits of I within it. C couldnt hold pieces of I if I didnt already exist. Logically, all of this seems like common sense, but it still needs to be said.

There is also the fuanal succession. Which i made another topic on transitional fossils, so this holds a bit of relation to that.

faunal_succession.jpg

If you examine the picture above. You wont find a leaf or T rex skull in rock unit B (Blue). Nor will you find a trilobite in rock unit A (red). So over the vast earth, you can find very specific fossils that exist in very specific times, and you can use them to correlate layers and other dating methods.

Ok, so these are basic relative dating principals. Theyre considered relative because, theyre relative to eachother. They dont tell us the actual age of the planet, but they do tell us that, A is older than B is older than C. If A takes X years to form, and B takes Y years to form, A + B can give us a generalized idea of how old the earth is.

With relative methods alone, anyone and everyone, given that they examine the earth, can intuitively see that the planet is really really really old. There are very complex structural features in the earth as well, that it would take me more time to explain, ill give a single example.

Lets say i have a Rock layed on the ground. Then due to plate tectonics, the rock is flipped vertically. Ok well, We all know how fast the continents drift around the planet. It takes a long time for a rock to be flipped 90 degrees. You dont need to be a highly educated scientist to deduce the idea that the planet is really really really old. You just have to see some of this stuff, and you will automatically know.

Ok, so now, ill move on to absolute dating methods. Now, there are, So many dating methods, its honestly mind boggling trying to consider them all. There are, tree cores, ice cores, varves, luminescence, fission track, there has to be atleast 15 radioactive methods. I mean, the list goes on and on.

But, for the sake of keeping this post fairly simple, i will simply put our radiometric dating as a whole. And, ive considered alternative explanations to how these methods could be flawed, and how they could be mistaking an old planet for a young one, and there really are none.

Basically, the way radiometric dating works is, you have elements that are radioactive. Radioactive elements blow out particles to stabilize themselves. And in doing so, an unstable parent nucleus can stabilize into a daughter nucleus. As seen above.

arozpad-alfa.gif

halflif.gif

And what we find is this transition. Like, lets say we have parent and daughter isotopes in a rock. The element takes 23 years for half of its parent isotopes to decay into daughter isotopes. We call this a half life. So, we have a half life of 23 years. Ok so, If i look at my rock, and 50% of its atoms are parent and 50% are daughter, i know that it has undergone 1 halflife, and is 23 years old.

Right, and if i see that 75% of the rock is daughter and 25% are parent, then i know that the rock has undergone 2 half lives. 50% of 50% is 25%. Right. So i know that it is roughly 46 years old.

So, lets say in real life, i find a rock that has a billion year half life. and its undergone 2 half lives. Ok, the rock is 2 billion years old.

Thats basically how it works. There are many many elements that decay in this way, all with varying half lives that we can cross correlate.

Like, i made a topic about the k-t extinction. Well, the iridium layer has been dating by if im not mistaken, 4 or 5 different radiometric dating methods. That is to say, 5 different elements with varying decay rates, all gave the same age of the rock.

Its like, if i took 4 hour glasses, all of varying sizes with different amounts of sand and different rates of sandfall, all of the hour glasses yielded the same age.

hour-glass.jpgHour%20Glass.jpg156-coffie-hourglass.jpegdigital-hour-glass.jpg

All giving the same age.

All correlating also with relative methods.

So, you may ask, what if theyre all wrong? Well, that logically doesnt make any sense. How could their rates of change all be independently manipulated and matched? And on top of that, when radioactive elements decay, they release heat. Mathematically, if these guys decayed too fast, they would turn the surface of the earth into multen lava. So we know, that they arent decaying superfast or anything tricky.

In some cases you actually have a particular radioactive element, trapped within the crystal lattice of another. Its like, making a box out of green legos and having the middle of the lego box be made of red legos. If the red legos decay and turn into playdoe, what you will have is a box of green legos with red plado inside.

With examples like this, you know the original amount of parent isotopes (red blocks), because you can see the exact space they once filled within the lattice of green blocks. So, in many cases, we know exactly what the starting proportions of the elements were prior to decay.

I could go on and on, but odds are ive lost most people at this point, so i will stop now.

Ive given a rough overview of relative methods which are intuitively common sense to anyone and everyone. And they correlate to absolute methods, which correlate to themselves, which correlate to other methods etc.

I hope everyone has enjoyed, and if anyone has any question, please ask. And i hope people come here to challange me first before they go around calling scientists fools. The people who discovered the age of the earth, or geologists in general. Scientists in general. We arent stupid. We understand what were doing, we understand where there may be flaws in initial research and we make sure that we establish our material and we find ways to answer to those flaws before we go around claiming it as truth.

In this case, i will say that there is a very very very high probability, were talking 99% chance, the earth is really old, presumably 4.56 billion years old, and if the experts agree on this, then the laymen should too, or u should atleast believe it is plausible.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows the earth is only 15,000 years old and the dinosaurs are a hoax. :!!!:

I am sorry, I am not not one of your " everyone ", so please tell me how do you conclude it to 15000 years and how do you explain those bones, which scientist have dug out in Red Deer Alberta Canada and other parts of the world.

your comments have taken me way back to good old days, when i was high school student in karachi and there was a pathan who used to think that sky is a big blue paper and all the stars and moon are like stickers, sticking to it, so he used to think landing on moon was a hoax and if white people even try to land on moon , they will fall back to earth. I mean no disrespect in any way to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry, I am not not one of your " everyone ", so please tell me how do you conclude it to 15000 years and how do you explain those bones, which scientist have dug out in Red Deer Alberta Canada and other parts of the world.

your comments have taken me way back to good old days, when i was high school student in karachi and there was a pathan who used to think that sky is a big blue paper and all the stars and moon are like stickers, sticking to it, so he used to think landing on moon was a hoax and if white people even try to land on moon , they will fall back to earth. I mean no disrespect in any way to you.

This is all a hoax to make us have disbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what do the supreme science books like the Bible and the Torah say, they can't be wrong.

You are right it is the typical divide and conquer by the west, a conspiricy of sorts.

I dont know if you guys have been keeping up with Alex Jones, but he proveded that Jesus did in fact use his magical powers to tame T-Rex war-mounts.

The bones exist, u can see the spear heads in the rib cages and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if you guys have been keeping up with Alex Jones, but he proveded that Jesus did in fact use his magical powers to tame T-Rex war-mounts.

The bones exist, u can see the spear heads in the rib cages and everything.

hahahaha I had to read it twice before I understood

because it is so strange looooool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.shiachat....39#entry2308239

BUT as we know there are many factors to consider when looking at long periods of time, like environment itself, no one can deny that environmental changes can affect some dating methodologies, Now apply that to a few thousands years alone where extreme environmental changes may theoretically occurred and we start to develop serious margins of error before we come close to billions of years. Another question is say we used 7 different methods of dating, 5 of them confirm our hypothesis and 2 don't, what shall we say about the 2? Can you tell me definitively that absolutely all of all the methodologies agreed to get the 4.56 Billion number?

In conclusion: I admit your point. But I hold this number to be highly theoretical.

Was-Salaam

~JawzofDeth

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just carrying this over to a place where i dont have to await approval to respond (though i did respond, im not sure if it will be approved). Do environmental changes affect dating methods? It depends on which ones. We know what environmental changes do and what they effect, and we take that into consideration upon research. For example, if there is a great deal of erosion in an environment, we can see the erosion, and we can measure stratigraphic sections and correlate them in a handful of ways to determine what has been eroded.

We know more about what the environment is capable of than anyone else and we take its effects into account, thats really all there is to it. We arent bafoons making things up and assuming things.

This is why i brought up the whole cross correlation thing. I mentioned the whole 5 hour glasses all yielding the same age. Now, the K-T boundary is located all over the planet and samples are collected all over the planet. No environmental change can skew this kind of research. Which is why i initially talked about it in my very first post. Because i knew someone would try to give this response. There is no flaw in the material i have provided, there is no mysterious source of error i have not already covered.

Unless its a planetary environmental change, that independently manipulated each decay rate at specific rates. And what i just said, is not a plausible concept, as a matter of fact, to believe it would be quite irrational and nonsensical. And again, i even further took the step of talking about heat released by decaying material melting the planet if the dates were younger than provided.

I have already toppled any and all rebukes before anyone has even given them, in this very topic.

"Can you tell me definitively that absolutely all of all the methodologies agreed to get the 4.56 Billion number?"

And as for this question, yes they did. You can either trust me, or try to prove me wrong. One thing we do for these types of concepts is, we deliberately go out of our way to prove each other wrong. And if we cant prove ourselves wrong, then i cant imagine anyone else could.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

=) Cute diagrams. Do you plan on becoming a teacher?

nope. Im...this is actually kind of ironic because of Jawz last post. Im actually more of an environmental geology kind of guy, not really a teacher geologist kind of guy.

Now, if anyone is following the discussion between Jawsofdeth and i in the thinkers discourse. He has given up on attacking the age of the earth, and has changed the subject to things like the origins of the universe.

So by demonstrating that scientists do not know something extremely complex like, where the big bang came from, he is trying to take credibility away from our words on something far more simple like the age of the earth.

Its like saying, because a scientists cant perform a PhD calculus based physics problem, he thinks if we cant do that, automatically we cant do something far simpler like locating Saudi Arabia on a map.

He isnt actually posting any real argument toward our science, and everyone should notice that.

/page__pid__2308505#entry2308505

There ya go. I want real people to stand up. If you have a problem with this science, then bring real arguments against it. Not just your opinion. And if all you have is your opinion, and youre going up against the scientific concensus' opinion, then obviously there is an issue. This is the challange that Islam and other religions often face. You have these conservatives like zakir naik and huran yahya who speak without actually knowing the science. Its time for people to step up to the plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope. Im...this is actually kind of ironic because of Jawz last post. Im actually more of an environmental geology kind of guy, not really a teacher geologist kind of guy.

Even that isnt entirely true. My practices and interests go across a few fields. Teaching is not one of them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one here listens to anyone here, just posting/forcing their point of view, THATS ALL!

Youre welcome to add to the discussion. If you have something reasonable to say, i will listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont deny the existence of the universe either, but that doesnt mean its utterly pointless talking about it.

I have a text from one of our shia hadees books which gives a detailed account of the life on earth. It talks about its age but I was too lazy to count tat up. By the way the book can be traced back to more than 1000 years with manuscripts still available to confirm. I will let u do the calculations as I am not very good at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a text from one of our shia hadees books which gives a detailed account of the life on earth. It talks about its age but I was too lazy to count tat up. By the way the book can be traced back to more than 1000 years with manuscripts still available to confirm. I will let u do the calculations as I am not very good at it.

If you have the name of the hadith, that would be great. Ill look around for it. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamalaikum,

Although this is talking about the activity of Allah azwj for a million or so years and does not necessarily deny creation or existence before this time.

    Holy Prophet (sawas) said: “Prophet Musa (a.s.) requested Allah (swt) to let him know the story of Genesis. Allah (swt) replied through ‘Wahy’: “Do you want to know the secrets thereof that are in My knowledge? He replied: “O’ Allah (swt) I only wished to know the facts” So Allah (swt) told Musa (a.s.): “Verily I have created the Earth ten times in a Million years” “In the beginning, this world remained empty and desolate for 5000 years after its creation then I built it in 50,000 years. Then I created cow like Mammals in it, which ate from my provisions and worshipped other than Me for 50,000 years. So in an instant I killed all of them. And this world remained empty and desolate for 50,000 years. Then I re-built it in 50,000 years and created Rivers in it and this world remained empty and desolate for 50,000 years, such that there was none to drink its water. Then I created a quadruped and gave it power over the water that drank all of it in one gulp. Then I created a gnat like creature that was smaller than a wasp and bigger than a bug and gave it power over the quadruped, so it killed it with its sting. And this world remained empty and desolate for 50,000 years. Then I re-built it in 50,000 years and filled it with jungles of reed and created a Tortoise like creature and gave it power over the jungles, they ate all the jungles leaving nothing of it. So I killed them all in an instant. And this world remained empty and desolate for 50,000 years. Then I re-built it in 50,000 years and created 30,000 Adams and there was a gap of 1000 years between each Adam. Then I annihilated them all with My destiny. Then I created in the world 500,000 cities of white silver and in each city 1000,000 palaces of pure gold and filled each palace with seeds of a size similar to the Mustard seeds that were sweeter and tastier than honey and whiter than the snow. Then I created a blind bird whose feed for the whole year was just one Mustard seed and this world remained empty and desolate until the bird ate all those seeds. And this world remained empty and desolate for 50,000 years. Then I re-built it in 1,000 years and created with My Power on a Friday Noon, your Adam and none else was created with the same clay as his and brought forth Mohammad (sawas) from his lineage”.

From the Article Document on Biological classification of Species and the Differentiators between the Species By Syed Ansar Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a really cool post i think that i figure i can bump.

 

Ethereal, it talks a bit about radiometric dating as well if youre interested.  Its relevant to the other evolution topic for those that are interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago i made this post.  I wanted to follow up with some additional info that i thought was interesting.

 

Shiachat appears to have gone dormant in recent days, but i still like to share information, should members ever come around again.

 

So id like to add a note about isochrons to this post.  Isochron dating is the dating of a rock with use of data understood through proportions of radioactive elements.

 

 

The most straight forward explanation for isochron dating usually goes as follows...

 

There is a parent isotope X, a daughter isotope Y, and a sister isotope (non radioactive isotope of the same element as the respective daughter element).

 

If you have a number of minerals, say 4 minerals, A, B C and D, and each of those minerals holds their own quantities of the above listed isotopes, then as time passes, the proportions of isotopes within your subjuct rock change.  That is to say, ratios of parent to daughter, parent to sister and daughter to sister would change within a rock.

 

I diagram is really the only way i could ever attempt to describe this.

 

 

 

rockline2.gif

 

 

Imagine each colored circle being a different mineral. 87 Rb / rubidium being your father isotope, decays into the daughter 87 Sr, strontium. 86 Sr. being a stable form of strontium that isnt going to fluctuate or increase as the father material decays.

 

As radioactive parent material decays, daughter material increases.  If graphed, you would, ideally find your data in a linear plot.  Where as your parent material decreases, the parent to sister ratio shifts horizontally within your graph, while your data point would simultaneously shift vertically as your daughter to sister ratio changes (as daughter material increases over time).

 

Assuming your ratio of parent, daughter, and sister elements are the same throughout each mineral upon rock formation, as time passes and your parent material decays and daughter material increases, you will find a lineral correlation between data points, mapping the proportions of these elements over time.

 

It is a bit difficult to explain.  I hope the little picture above helps clarify. 

 

But what this means is, if the rock were geochemically altered after formation (altering the quantity of parent, daughter or sister elements), then you would have some sort of a sporadic or skewed set of data points (your ratios would be all mismatched between minerals), rather than a smooth linear progression of points.  And if your data set is smooth in linear, this supports the idea that your sample has not been geochemically altered, post crystallization.

 

Other cool posts of mine...maybe ill make a new one.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234989658-the-theory-of-evolution/

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234996502-transitional-fossils/

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234996750-endogenous-retroviral-phylogenetic-trees/

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234990958-the-story-of-rodinia/

I think the power in isochron dating is that you have one dating method, used on the chemistry of a number of different samples/minerals, all originating from the same rock. If the ratios of isotopes within each mineral, all indicate a specific age, independently of one another and within the same rock, you have a single dating method that cross checks itself.

 

Rather than using multiple dating methods on one rock.  Youre using one dating method, multiple times within the same rock, that if geochemically altered, would not produce clear/linear data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for posting struggling, im glad to see someone respond positively. And of course, may God bless/reward you as well for your efforts in understanding and spreading His truth (given that he is out there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • @E.L King gave great advice. Also make sure that even if she doesn't listen, you don't let her think that you're fine with her not wearing hijab (Sayed Sistani). But you have to remember to give her the message in a way that resonates with her and is most likely to produce a response. It also doesn't mean you should stop treating her with kindness - on the condition that such treatment doesn't encourage her in her ways, in which case even breaking ties with family is wajib if it's the only way to stop them from committing sins (see Sayed Khamenei's Q and A on this topic). So pray for her and find the best way to guide her to fulfilling this important obligation.
    • As l posted during Europe's refugee "crisis". one country built something like 75-100km of border 'wall' (chain link, razor wire, and all) in a weekend following a week or more on another section of their southern border.
    • A new anti-Trump book has been released. Collusion by Luke Harding(2017). These two book reviews express skepticism over the inherent validity of any innuendo or "relationships" between Russia and Trump. ln a BBC interview, 23Nov17, Harding said this putting-Trump-in-the-Soviet/Russian-camp has been a Moscow objective since the 1980s. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/luke-harding/collusion-harding/  https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/promotionalss/article/75310-vintage-to-release-collusion-a-new-book-on-trump-russia-controversy.html
    • Whoever is telling you "that's between her and Allah it does not concern you" is ignoring the commandment of Allah to enjoin good and forbid evil. Enjoining good and forbidding evil is even more important when it comes to your own family members. If she has her mind made up and you cannot stop her, then it is not wajib on you anymore, only then can you let it go. But if you can stop her by convincing her through dialogue and preaching, then it is wajib on you to to try. But you should never show pleasure in these actions of hers. May Allah bless you.
    • Yeah I think she's exactly the same.
×