Geology not a 'precise science'

[hatcheckgirl]

Interesting interchange between scientists on the latest "discovery" on life originating on earth.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/ancient-crystals-reveal-life-could-be-older-than-thought/6870678

 

The researchers from Stanford University and the University of California were commenting on zircons found in the Yigarn Craton at Jack Hills, suggesting that life could have appeared 300 million years earlier than thought, then extrapolating these finding "to theorize that life itself is more plentiful throughout the universe because it seemed to start up so quickly" - http://apnews.excite.com/article/20151019/us-sci--earliest_life-a400435d0d.html

 

However,  a geochemist from Curtin University School of Mines in Western Australia, and an expert on early earth studies and the formation of the planet's crust at UNSW are sceptical.

 

"It is significant because it states the possibility, but whether it gives us 100 per cent confidence ... probably not...Geology really isn't ... a precise science, so what we base our conclusion on is observation, and the more observations [that] are made coming from different sites, the more confidence we get in what we believe is happening."

 

"This is an interesting little observation and discovery, any discovery in old materials is of interest, but is it a life signature?

... Do I get excited? Not really."

[kejedo]

Having taught Earth Science, including geology, I can attest that there are many maniacs in the field. Quite a number of seismologists or volcanologists have died in eruptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Johnston(one example, there are a large number that can be googled.) I used info from the 'Reasoning' book re: the age of the earth. 

[Gary Slocum]

I have taken geology classes and it is well known that carbon dates for coal and such can only go back to 40,000 years as the half-life used is no older. The next marker is potassium-argon dating to 387,000,000 years and before so that leaves an incredibly large gap in which most life of larger fossils falls which cannot be reliably dated by any radiological method. (Uranium is 4.6 billion and solidified igneous rock can be dated to 4 billion years) As noted recently, the 'days' are 'periods of creation' which overlap so we can only hypothesize reality until Jehovah sees fit to give us a firm answer. MAN and his history is very reliably dated by Scripture so these caveman 'stories' are just lies laid uopn lies. The skull tells you if a bone is a human or primate by the placement of the brainstem and the opposable thumb on the phalanges. I told a guy recently that you cannot tell me my house is 4 billion years old because I made bricks out of stone. So 'relativistic dating' must be used which is incredibly hard because of so many factors with so many variables. (Layering, erosion rates, fault line shifts, etc.) empirical evidence is almost useless because you cannot derive an experiment that you can repeat to get the same reliable results. Ok, so I am starting to sound like the OJ criminal defense team, lol. I'll leave it at that...

[kejedo]

I have taken geology classes and it is well known that carbon dates for coal and such can only go back to 40,000 years as the half-life used is no older. The next marker is potassium-argon dating to 387,000,000 years and before so that leaves an incredibly large gap in which most life of larger fossils falls which cannot be reliably dated by any radiological method. (Uranium is 4.6 billion and solidified igneous rock can be dated to 4 billion years) As noted recently, the 'days' are 'periods of creation' which overlap so we can only hypothesize reality until Jehovah sees fit to give us a firm answer. MAN and his history is very reliably dated by Scripture so these caveman 'stories' are just lies laid uopn lies. The skull tells you if a bone is a human or primate by the placement of the brainstem and the opposable thumb on the phalanges. I told a guy recently that you cannot tell me my house is 4 billion years old because I made bricks out of stone. So 'relativistic dating' must be used which is incredibly hard because of so many factors with so many variables. (Layering, erosion rates, fault line shifts, etc.) empirical evidence is almost useless because you cannot derive an experiment that you can repeat to get the same reliable results. Ok, so I am starting to sound like the OJ criminal defense team, lol. I'll leave it at that...

Yup to every thing except the last two sentences. The methods of 'dating' items and remains are dubious, at best, and unreliable in the generally accepted sciences. Congrats to having studied Geology. Some parts are fun and fascinating like using Moh's hardness test, streak plates, and density measurements for rock and mineral ID.

[hatcheckgirl]

Oh I have to agree, studying Earth Science recently has awakened my interest in our lovely planet and I look forward to learning forever about it.  Though we take the scientific "evidence" with a pinch of salt, the information science has revealed about the earth magnifies our glorious Creator.  How exactly he did it, we will need to wait on Jehovah and leave the speculation to scientists.