DETERMINING AGE OF ROCKS AND FOSSILS
Some very straightforward principles are used to determine the age of fossils. 5 ) To use radiometric dating and the principles of determining relative age to show how Principle of cross-cutting relations: Any geologic feature is younger than. Anyone else who looks younger than they are will definitely know what People look at the completely age-appropriate men I date as pervy. Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age. . The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon dating, which archaeologists prefer to use.
Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past. This is partially true, but there is a crucial difference: For phenomena which are used in dating, such as the radioactive decay of potassium, the observed rate is constant and no known mechanisms of changing the rate exist.
The vast majority of creationist assumptions of uniformitarianism, however, end up absurd because they ignore important known mechanisms of rate change. Radiometric dating does not merely give age for an assumed constant rate of decay, but also relative age. Comparing, for example, a 10, y. To believe that they are about the same age, i. If they are found in the same place, the problem is exacerbated.
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages about 14 billion years for the universe and 4.
Indeed, the assumptions of constant rates used by many creationists cannot be proved — but they can easily be disproved by pointing out obvious mechanisms of rate changes. No such disproof is available for the assumptions behind mainstream methods of dating.
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend. This appears to contradict the article's support for uniformitarianism in previous paragraphs.
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to "prove" long ages. The lesson here is clear: Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events see "It's not science" img.
Young-Earth Creationism is unanimously rejected by the scientific community. Deep time and the 4. Many of the scientists who discovered evidence for an Earth much older than the Biblical account were devout Christians and experienced crises of faith because the insistence that Ussher's 6,year timeline was inviolable strained consilience. Many creationists make an artificial and bogus distinction between historical scienceor science which makes them uncomfortable, and operational sciencewith which they claim not to have any problems.
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded. This claim is that God is a reliable witness, although He did not physically inscribe the Bible himself.
This was done by the hands of many over the course of centuries, with well-established Biblical scholarship indicating tremendous amounts of editing and sources in older legends. By this line of reasoning, no one would have any justification for estimating the age of another person; they might look elderly but unless they tell you their age or look up their birth records, they could be six days old for all you knew.
DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
I look young for my age dating methods. Fick noch heute frauen aus deiner umgebung
A valid point is being made here. Unfortunately for them, it's probably not the point they intended to make. In the early s a number of studies were published which claimed to have isolated DNA from samples dating back as far as million years. Consequently this is not evidence for young earth creationism. See also Salty saga img. The claimed isolation of million year old bacteria from salt deposits in the Delaware Basin is still debated; the age of the salt is accepted — contrary to the claims in the second link — but the age of the bacteria is not.
This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years.
A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8 2: This argument relates to the claimed Fall of Manin which it is posited that humans were cut off from God's life force and their genomes thus started "decaying". This is completely factually inaccurate.
Not only is there no evidence of a general genetic decay, but there are known recent beneficial mutations in humans, e. Sanford, who testified at the Kansas evolution hearings in support of intelligent design. Neither his book nor any paper promoting his concept of "genetic entropy" has ever been peer-reviewed.
The last linked paper is from a peer-reviewed computer science journal; however, the paper describes the computer program itself, and does not claim any biological significance for its output. Creationists and scientists aren't talking about the same "Eve" here. Mitochondria contain mitochondrial DNA mtDNAwhich derives from an early point in evolutionary history when mitochondria existing symbiotically with precursors to animals' cells merged.12 Proven Ways to Look Younger Than Your Age
Unlike the Eve of the Bible, Mitochondrial Eve is not believed to be the first human female; she is only the most recent matrilineal common ancestor of all persons living today. This does not imply that she was the only female around at the time, just that the mitochondrial lines of all the other women alive at that time were interrupted at some point, either by having no children or by having only sons.
Mitochondrial Eve had to inherit her mtDNA from her mother, after all, and her mother inherited it from her grandmother, etc. Finally, the geography that leads biologists to their conclusions about Mitochondrial Eve's origin in East Africa is more or less conclusive disproof of the claim of the Garden of Eden as having been present in what we now call the Middle East.
The Age of the Earth
This isn't necessarily evidence against a young earth per se, but certainly a problem for CMI's belief in Biblical inerrancy. The Y chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome can be followed back to a single most recent common male ancestor. That male would have inherited his Y chromosome from his father, who inherited it from his father, etc. The existence of a Y-chromosomal Adam does not mean that there was only one man alive at that time, but rather that the male-exclusive lineages of all the other men alive at that time have been broken — either by childlessness or by having only daughters.
The only factor affecting the DNA on the Y chromosome is mutation, so measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can provide an estimate of when this most recent common male ancestor lived: Note that the age estimates for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not particularly close; there is no reason to suspect that they would be.
Even in the Biblical account of the Flood, Noah would be the Y-chromosome "Adam," since no other males survived the Flood except for Noah's sons. So even in creationism, the origin of mankind and the dating of Y-chromosome Adam really have nothing to do with one another.
See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? And this still leaves fossil bones which are dated many millions of years old that have been mineralized. There are also other hard parts, notably shells, that are formed of calcium carbonate calcite or aragonite and can be found almost unchanged since deposition as far back as the Cambrian.
Dinosaur bones date from as far back as million years ago. However these disputes are of the form " million years vs. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels imgproteins img hemoglobin imgosteocalcin imgcollagen img are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
Claims of protein, DNA, or any other biological material extracted from dinosaur remains are, generously speaking, highly dubious. Evidence supporting such claims includes iron-bearing substances theorized to represent heme compounds found in bone marrow. Opponents contend that certain "dinosaur soft tissues " could well have been recent bacterial sediment. Amino acid racemization dating is a technique that uses the ratio of amino acid isomers to date fossilized objects up to several millions of years into the past.
Measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, can date objects as far back as the claimed-implausible several million years. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real. The jellyfish have actually changed, as have the coelacanths — they aren't the same species at all, as the author claims.
They merely belong to the same order: Of the life forms given as examples, only the Wollemi pine is a species, and not such an old one as claimed. The "many hundreds of species" are out of millions of species.
Only a tiny proportion of fossil species have modern counterparts. The key point, however, is that the "living fossils" didn't change much because they were well-adapted to a stable environment.
He was a sugar daddy who paid for a tummy tuck and who knows what else. The difference is largely a projected image of confidence and self-respect. Personal info In addition to skin care, some cosmetic treatments such as chemical peels, microdermabrasion, laser therapy, face lifts, Botox and collagen injections result in younger-looking skin.
I am damn sure that I will get the same comments everywhere, and I am prepared to let them slip and live my life to the fullest and concentrate in things that do matter.
Life is too short and valuable to waste it feeling bad or having negative thoughts for how young you look. Sinceshe has been busy as a successful freelancer specializing in Web content.
I wouldn't sweat it. Jesus, I was totally about to ask you out for coffee! I have some female friends making sure I don't date younger girls around 20, cause they think it's wrong.
Clothing, hairstyle, makeup and personality also play a role.
50 ways to look younger
Men get this a lot if they bald early on. You don't always get taken seriously If you're getting this comment in professional settings, I get the impression that most people assume all of their coworkers are 26 and up. I have kind of the opposite problem in that I'm 29 and have a masters degree but people tend to think I'm a lot younger at first glance like I still get IDed more than half the time I buy boozeand I feel like it does affect the way they treat me not liquor store clerks, people in general.
The scheme worked all round the world, without fail. From the s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Accuracy of the fossils Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs. Sincepaleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils.
In the past years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come sincenor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils. Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything and clearly never willbut we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life.
Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees. Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.
Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological external form or molecular gene sequence characters. Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.
The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms. Accuracy of dating Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older.
The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay: Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements. Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates. Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.