Reddit reviews The Age of the Earth

BTW, G. Brent Dalrymple, PhD (the author of the paper at that link) is not just your average internet expert - he is a renowned expert in geology and radiometric dating. A President's National Medal of Science winner, former Asst Chief Geologist at the USGS and a principal investigator on the NASA team that analyzed the lunar rocks brought back on Apollo 11 to 13. He literally "wrote the book" on radiometric dating and the age of the Earth.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Earth-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Earth-Skies-Cosmic-Surroundings/dp/0804749337

If you bothered to read the Springer link you would have learned of the different dating methods used and you would have seen that the article was supported by independent studies.

Attempts to link the Bible and geology were ended long ago. It’s only recently where creationist have regained a voice. Largely because of their ability to publish something online without a peer-review process.

So let’s look at his sources (that aren’t creationists). Most of his sources are from the small and discredited creationist community. They are discredited because the blatantly misrepresent the geological and larger scientific record.

Purdue source:

>The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

The ENCODE project has been criticized for its liberal interpretation of the word “functional”. They have since defined the term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE#Criticism_of_the_project

What is interesting about the Purdue article is that it establishes the scientific community’s pursuit of the truth regardless of what the truth is. If you look at the history of earth dating methods, you’ll see one scientists after another trying to confirm the work of the previous scientist. As time went on, the older ideas and discoveries were supplanted by better ones. And each time the earth was determined to be older than previously thought. The attempts to date the earth go way back to 1700s and even then it was realized that age of the earth was at least millions of years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html (note the diverse sources)

A creationist first believes the Bible and sets out to prove it. They discard what doesn’t fit, massage other data to fit and come back to same conclusion.

You’re entitled to your religion, but not your facts.

Challenge your beliefs and read this
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Earth-G-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311

You might look at the age of the earth or plate tectonics. There is a good book on the age of the earth that goes through all of the evidence.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Earth-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311
I can't think of an equivalent book on plate tectonics, but a number of geology textbooks go through the evidence for it.

Brent Dalrymple's book, Age of Earth is also a good read.