The Age of the Earth - Can it be trusted?

a reply to: IndependentAgent

No it's not circular reasoning.

As Arbitrageur said: layers mean time. The deeper you go, the further back in time you go until you get to the part of the crust that formed when things here on Earth began to cool down finally after it's formation.

It's a very well established in geology how this works.

We can dig down in certain places and find very old to ancient civilizations, of which their were records. The date of those records matches the layers the place was buried.

a reply to: eriktheawful

What about "out of place artifacts", or "ooparts"?

a reply to: IndependentAgent

There is a thread that has a list of all the OOParts that people over the years have created here on ATS. It's a great resources in doing some reading about them:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It also has a list of threads on Giants and Baalbek.

I'm sure you'll find some interesting reading there.

AFAIK there has not been a OOPart yet that has not been explained or exposed as a hoax yet, but I could be wrong. Do some research in those threads and you might find something.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Awesome thanks!

originally posted by: IndependentAgent


Should we expect the official age of the earth in the year 2015 to be 4.47 billion years old?

1 is not sure, because the dating processes done to come up with the correct age to 1 could be misleading when considering cosmic radiations from the STAR of ORIGIN of which the SOL system material was formed from...

Also considering the Radiation from SOL further altering the processed data continuously its not easy to really tell Objectively.

Outta box- If EA*RTH and many other present celestial objects (planets-moons-comets-asteroids) where say tugged or brought here from other systems the data can then be challenged even more because how can the cosmic exposure from the place of origin to here be verified or even understood if say the tugging or bringing process involved movements past other radiation exposing STARS?

Currently 1 does not challenge the scientific methods of which the dating is performed, for this is all humanity is permitted access to as of now, but 1 does keep an open mind in case more Objective data is found or provided. Some may say tug!!! How? & all 1 can offer is an imaginative program to consider STAR systems w/ much much larger STARS then SOL, with larger planets & moons present and then you can begin to get a feel of how much larger potentials could perform such a task with either tugging with tractor beams or hauling large masses within large Star craft transports haul areas...

NAMASTE*******

we certainly cant know everything and scientists are relying on dynamic truths.

for example, a 2000 year old computer exists.

But people dont talk about that much...
a reply to: IndependentAgent

a reply to: daftpink
People talk about the Antikythera mechanism all the time. There are numerous threads about it on ATS and researchers are unlocking its secrets by using advanced X-ray techniques to read inscriptions that haven't been read for over 2000 years.

The Antikythera Mechanism Research Project

However I don't see what this has to do with the age of the Earth. Even young earth creationists don't deny humans were around 2200 years ago.

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

By the way, science is not a religion so it doesn't claim absolutes.

Why then does scientists say that they are "absolutely sure that the earth is that old"

This should read, "Why do scientists (and those who use science as a soapbox) laugh and criticize anyone who doesn't fall 100% in line with whatever their current model shows? Even though it's been proven to be wrong previously?

a reply to: jjkenobi

Because they attack science using simplistic and long debunked arguments ad nauseum? Science has been wrong about things in the past but that doesn't mean that an argument derived soley from a holy book and utterly lacking in factual basis trumps the multiple independent lines of evidence clearly showing the earth to be very, very old indeed.

a reply to: jjkenobi
Scientists dismiss claims which don't match established models, if the claims have insufficient evidence. Famously they dismissed the idea of plate tectonics since the geographic fit of East South America with West Africa and matching fossils wasn't sufficient. When more evidence was found (I think it was the mid-Atlantic ridge), the claim was accepted.

There are some claims of limited deviations in the age of the Earth, but as I said I don't foresee any future revision of Earth's estimated age to fall outside the 4-5 billion year age range. There are too many multiple lines of evidence which corroborate each other placing it in this range. The estimate itself can change from where it is now based on new evidence, but don't expect any huge shifts.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: daftpink
People talk about the Antikythera mechanism all the time. There are numerous threads about it on ATS and researchers are unlocking its secrets by using advanced X-ray techniques to read inscriptions that haven't been read for over 2000 years.

The Antikythera Mechanism Research Project

However I don't see what this has to do with the age of the Earth. Even young earth creationists don't deny humans were around 2200 years ago.

Of course but I mean in MSM and not just on forums. My point was that people put too much trust in the traditional tale of evolution yet we were making sophisticated computers 2000 years ago. That doesnt fit in with the current thougth on our 'primitive' ancestors therefore we must accept that our 'truths' about humanity and the earth's history are always dynamic as we learn more and more about ourselves and will continue to do so. That includes the age of the earth.

a reply to: daftpink

Evolution is an explenation for biodiversity, nothing else. It has no bearing on your implausible speculation of ancient computers.

a reply to: GetHyped

Do you accept that truth is dynamic and what we 'know' now will change as we learn and discover more? (this includes teh age of the earth.)

a reply to: daftpink

What does this have to do with anything I have said? Evolution is an explanation for biodiversity, nothing else. Not culture, not technology but biodiversity.

originally posted by: daftpink
My point was that people put too much trust in the traditional tale of evolution yet we were making sophisticated computers 2000 years ago. That doesnt fit in with the current thougth on our 'primitive' ancestors

What is your source for this? While it's an amazing feat of engineering, I don't know of any scientists who claim that people at the time it was made were too "primitive" to make it. There are always a few geniuses around.

I still don't see what the antikythera mechanism has to do with the age of the Earth. As I said, I won't be surprised if the estimate of the Earth's age changes a little. The way science works after all is to refine theories based on new data. I will be surprised if it's changed to an estimate outside the 4-5 billion years old range, as I think this is highly unlikely to happen. There is also historical support for this idea since recent new discoveries have made smaller changes to the estimated age of the Earth, compared to older discoveries that happened when we didn't know as much.

There is no requirement I know of in evolution to require the Earth to be billions of years old, just one billion would be more than long enough, though 6000 years would not be long enough. So like the antikythera mechanism I don't see much correlation between evolution and the age of the Earth, unless one wants to use evolution to show an age greater than 6000 years but the vast majority of scientists have never considered such a young age to be plausible. We use other lines of evidence besides evolution to determine Earth's estimated age.

This thread proves to me why religion sjould be no where near a classroom.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
In the 1500's, people thought sickness was caused by demons.

In the 1600's, people thought sickness was caused by Miasma

In the 1700's, people thought sickness was caused by Foul Odors

In the 1800's, people began to understand sickness was caused by tiny living creatures called bacteria and viruses.

in the 1900's, We began developing advanced medical techniques.

Now, human life expectancy has all but doubled.

Just because science made mistakes in the past, doesn't mean current science is incorrect. Is the science of dating the earth perfected? Probably not, we'll probably continue to learn more about our earth, just as we continue to learn more about medicine.

That's the beauty of science. Old data is discarded or revamped as soon as new data comes along which disproves it.

In the 1500's, people thought sickness was caused by demons - Virus bacteria demons same #

In the 1600's, people thought sickness was caused by Miasma - dirty garbage and decomposing stuff

In the 1800's, people began to understand sickness was caused by tiny living creatures called bacteria and viruses. hence the idea of bathing that smelly ass to fight the demons
in the 1900's, We began developing advanced medical techniques. People stated exorcising those demons from there body with anti-bacterial holy water cleans most demonic positions right out unless you caught sum STD from Sinning with a dirty whore.

Can time even be considered a constant the year that just passed might be faster or slower then a year 1 million or a billion years ago what is a year as a measurement of time it could never be really know if time changes as it ages.