4 billion-year-old diamonds found in Australia

[nebula]

Oldest Diamonds Found in Australia

Dani Cooper, ABC Science Online

Aug. 23, 2007

[Joshua-777]

The diamonds are in rocks billions of years old.

because you were there?

the fanciful time frames that flow off the tongue of so many pundits in 2007 never cease to amaze me, and they keep growing every decade...first it was hundreds of thousands...then millions...then billions...why not go for trillions?

it's all meaningless blather, as myco would say...the domain of faith...try to wrap your head around even one million years, these are unspeakably vast periods of imaginary time

you said that you were an engineer by profession. How about you put your engineer's cap on, and do some sums, and work out what sort of temperatures that a billion-fold increase in nuclear decay would create on Earth?

I don't know...neither do you...no one was there

the supernatural creation of the earth from nothing, immediately, is completely outside the human frame of reference...I don't put human limits on the infinite, eternal God the secret things belong to the Lord, God alone was there, He is not trying to deceive us, we don't have all the facts in hand and the assumptions inherent in radioisotope dating of rocks cannot possibly be verified

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. We know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short half-life polonium halos in rock have been used by many to argue for rapid formation (i.e., creation) of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two 'mutually-exclusive' facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. We know of many ways in which the materials can be made mobile, most particularly through ground water leaching. But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination.

Assumption Three: No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava) can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The method's unreliability is shown when rocks of known age are dated. For instance, the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens dates at 2.8 million years old! Such anomalous results are common.

I agree

[nebula]

You know guys - this whole "dating method" debate has been rehashed to death on other threads, and it is going nowhere.

Why don't you all challenge yourselves a bit at look at the mystery this finding produces?

Just assume for a moment that even if the dating methods are off, that rocks created in the same time frame are correctly dated together. By even this assumption, those diamonds shouldn't be there.

Some scientists are willing to believe the conventional belief in the formation of the Earth is incorrect (what they are calling a "cool" Earth rather than the molten Earth).

Don't you think this is something worth considering?

Consider this, too - diamonds are pure carbon, remember? As far as I know, it is believed that carbon remains like this come from life-forms - coal, oil, diamonds, all pure carbon, come from decayed organic matter (life forms). Correct?

So, where did this pure carbon come from?

Now, don't you think this is more interesting to discuss than the dating methods?

[carrielles]

Oh I have the facts...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

What is more fact than that? Old earth is strictly against scripture....

Exodus 20 is supportive scripture...thats 2 solid facts.

[Guest]

[Guest AV1611_USER]

No, because the diamonds are in the rocks; what's the difficulty here?

That's circular reasoning. People who actually believe all that old-earth stuff measure the age of the rocks by the stuff in them, and they measure the age of the stuff in the rocks by the rocks themselves.

The date has been stable for decades, and has been billions ever since radio dating.

Radio dating is extremely inacurrate. Ashes from a volcano that erupted in 1801 were radio-carbon dated to be several millions of years old.

Right, let's give you a clue. Humphreys and his RATE mob concede that radio isotopes decay at a constant rate, and indicate that the Earth is 4.6 Bn years old. So, to fit this evidence with their pet theory, they have postulated that there must have been some time in the past when this rate was vastly accelerated, in order to come up with 6,000 years. ie the decay all happened very rapidly, then suddenly stopped again. Theories like this are so laughable, they wouldn't get an F- in physics 101 class. What they propose is that decay occurred at about 1 billion times current. Let's gloss over the fact that this would break all the laws of physics. The Earth is warmed to this day by radioactivity below the surface. If this was accelerated 1 bilion times, the planet would be engulfed by a nuclear fireball hotter than the sun.

Noah would boil, then be roasted to a cinder, in less than a millionth of a second. That's how stupid the idea is.

You're forgetting that creationists believe in an infinite God. He doesn't have to follow the laws of physics. He can cause anything to happen, whether it is consistent with science or not.

You may not have the facts, but physicists do.

What makes you think that physicists have the facts? They don't.

[MorningGlory]

You know guys - this whole "dating method" debate has been rehashed to death on other threads, and it is going nowhere.

Why don't you all challenge yourselves a bit at look at the mystery this finding produces?

Just assume for a moment that even if the dating methods are off, that rocks created in the same time frame are correctly dated together. By even this assumption, those diamonds shouldn't be there.

Some scientists are willing to believe the conventional belief in the formation of the Earth is incorrect (what they are calling a "cool" Earth rather than the molten Earth).

Don't you think this is something worth considering?

Consider this, too - diamonds are pure carbon, remember? As far as I know, it is believed that carbon remains like this come from life-forms - coal, oil, diamonds, all pure carbon, come from decayed organic matter (life forms). Correct?

So, where did this pure carbon come from?

Now, don't you think this is more interesting to discuss than the dating methods?

Good point, Nebula. I don't know about the feuders, who constantly belittle and snipe at each other, but I think the origin of the pure carbon is MUCH more interesting than arguing the same things endlessly. Especially for the rest of us who like to read comments from our esteemed engineers and biologists. When they aren't being petty, of course.

[Guest Biblicist]

Oohhh, pretty, shiny diamond!

I wonder how much it would cost and how it would look on my finger!

A kiss on the hand

May be quite continental,

But diamonds are a girl's best friend.

[MorningGlory]

Oohhh, pretty, shiny diamond!

I wonder how much it would cost and how it would look on my finger!

A kiss on the hand

May be quite continental,

But diamonds are a girl's best friend.

Yep, and we don't need any carbon dating either......a simple appraisal will do.

[Guest]

Girls!