The Age of the Earth - Can it be trusted?

a reply to: IndependentAgent

You started this intellectually dishonest Just asking Questions thread and now your true agenda and religious fundamentalism is out in the oppen you want to pick up your ball and go home. You're quite content to ignorantly criticise the position of science but your irrational position of faith that drives this thread is off topic? Right.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Thing is, if there is evidence that is scientific as claimed - like because all these scientist support it like you said... then religion need not come in to it and you can use verifiable facts and evidence to form to your argument.......


Soooooo....

I was not the one who brought up the subject of religion. I tried to stay away from it. And, I did actually give evidence, but was ignored. But thanks, this will be my last post on this thread, due to the fact that religion and ancient civilizations is the current discussions.

If you want to take me on about religion, do so in a Religious Thread.

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Thing is, if there is evidence that is scientific as claimed - like because all these scientist support it like you said... then religion need not come in to it and you can use verifiable facts and evidence to form to your argument.......


Soooooo....

I was not the one who brought up the subject of religion. I tried to stay away from it. And, I did actually give evidence, but was ignored. But thanks, this will be my last post on this thread, due to the fact that religion and ancient civilizations is the current discussions.

If you want to take me on about religion, do so in a Religious Thread.

i was interested in the science and evidence side, why argue about religion? it's entirely personal.

Don't suggest you have evidence/rational explanations and fail to bring it though, that gets people's backs up and leads to multiple posters disagreeing with you like here.

Did i ever say i wanted a religious argument?

a reply to: IndependentAgent

Don't talk nonsense. Your agenda is one of religious fundamentalism. YOU brought religion into this science forum by trying to discredit the science behind dating because you find the evidence disconcerting to your literal reading of the Bible.

Whatever science was presented to you you simply poo poo'd it out of hand. You were not here to discuss science, you were here to promote your fundamentalist beliefs.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

You started this intellectually dishonest Just asking Questions thread and now your true agenda and religious fundamentalism is out in the oppen you want to pick up your ball and go home. You're quite content to ignorantly criticise the position of science but your irrational position of faith that drives this thread is off topic? Right.

Again with the accusations. I started the thread to discuss the fact that "scientists show..." is always changing, and that they should be open about the fact that yes, they can, and often is wrong. But that ended up by people demanding what I believe, which was the starting point of this becoming a religious argument. After refusing at first, knowing the outcome, I stated what I believe. That gave rise to a heated religious argument, as I knew I would. My agenda was a discussion on the validity of current scientific claims, nothing else. And the times I actually did give a religious response, was when a religious answer was asked of me.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Don't talk nonsense. Your agenda is one of religious fundamentalism. YOU brought religion into this science forum by trying to discredit the science behind dating because you find the evidence disconcerting to your literal reading of the Bible.

Whatever science was presented to you you simply poo poo'd it out of hand. You were not here to discuss science, you were here to promote your fundamentalist beliefs.

Please show me where I brought in my "religious fundamentalism"?

originally posted by: skalla

Did i ever say i wanted a religious argument?

That was for those you were actually arguing on religion

a reply to: IndependentAgent

Good advice is to do your homework before posting, your OP was just asking for people to leap all over it and ask if you'd ever read more than one book and checked facts and definitions.

oh dear : that escallated quickly

but - back on the age of the earth - dont be coy - please explain your " sciefitfic rationalisation " for your claim of a 7000 YO earth ???????????????

its smells to the rest of us like YEC dogma

so where [ if not YEC dogma ] did you get the 7000 year old earth claim ?????????

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Don't talk nonsense. Your agenda is one of religious fundamentalism. YOU brought religion into this science forum by trying to discredit the science behind dating because you find the evidence disconcerting to your literal reading of the Bible.

Whatever science was presented to you you simply poo poo'd it out of hand. You were not here to discuss science, you were here to promote your fundamentalist beliefs.

Please show me where I brought in my "religious fundamentalism"?

Really? Are we really going to play this game? EVERY source you have posted is a creationist source. You claim the earth is only 7,000 years old (in line with creationist claims). You claim evolution is wrong (again, in line with creationist claims).

But hey, you're not a young earth creationist, you're "just asking questions!".

So, you say you're not a YEC. Where are you getting this 7,000 years figure from, then?

a reply to: IndependentAgent

There are no dinosaur fossil's younger than 10,000 years. You can't carbon date anything beyond 60,000 years because carbon-14's half life is less than 6,000 years. Uranium-238 is often used to date rocks that are older than 60,000 years.

I think I'm getting your misunderstanding of radiometric dating. You sound like your basing your evidence on carbon-14 alone. This is an incorrect way of understanding as there are more methods used than just carbon-14 dating.

Any piece of anything you send to a lab to be dated using only carbon-14 will be less than 60,000 years. Anything. That's not because the item you're testing is younger than 60,000 years, it's because carbon-14 doesn't work with anything older than that.

It's not that the tool is wrong, it's that you're using it wrong. Kinda like using a hammer to unscrew a screw.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

You know how when you read a scientific article on just about anything they use words like should/could/most likely/up to/with a margins of/and many other terms such as those which drive some crazy.

Well they have good reasons for it. Think of it this way in all those old dated ages if you told someone the earth is at least that age give or take a few you would have correct every time. As far as I know science has always stated it that way so they were not wrong.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Science is accurate in that it shows the earth is old, as opposed to mythology stating that it's young.

Pretty much this, new theories are made everyday. We will never know how old Earth truly is until someone goes back in time or something.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: IndependentAgent

There are no dinosaur fossil's younger than 10,000 years. You can't carbon date anything beyond 60,000 years because carbon-14's half life is less than 6,000 years. Uranium-238 is often used to date rocks that are older than 60,000 years.

I think I'm getting your misunderstanding of radiometric dating. You sound like your basing your evidence on carbon-14 alone. This is an incorrect way of understanding as there are more methods used than just carbon-14 dating.

Any piece of anything you send to a lab to be dated using only carbon-14 will be less than 60,000 years. Anything. That's not because the item you're testing is younger than 60,000 years, it's because carbon-14 doesn't work with anything older than that.

It's not that the tool is wrong, it's that you're using it wrong. Kinda like using a hammer to unscrew a screw.

So you will not find any dinosaur fossils younger than 10,000 years, mainly because the did not exist back then. But do you get fossils younger that 10,000 year?

There are other dating methods used besides carbon 14:

Radiometic Dating

Dinosaur bones (fossils actually) can not be dated using any type of radiometric dating system, because as was stated, carbon 14 can only go back so far, and other methods using different isotopes would work, except: you do not normally find those isotopes in the sedimentary layers that dinosaur fossils are formed from.

Rock that forms and has these isotopes that can be measured for dating, normally come from rock that was lava, and that of course would destroy any dinosaur bones.

BUT: Dating can be found by identifying the layer that the bones are found in, and then searching the same layer near by where there are igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma in the same layer, or even volcanic ash. By being able to date the rock this way, the fossils found in the sedimentary layers from the same time period can be achieved.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
There are other dating methods used besides carbon 14:

Radiometic Dating

Dinosaur bones (fossils actually) can not be dated using any type of radiometric dating system, because as was stated, carbon 14 can only go back so far, and other methods using different isotopes would work, except: you do not normally find those isotopes in the sedimentary layers that dinosaur fossils are formed from.

Rock that forms and has these isotopes that can be measured for dating, normally come from rock that was lava, and that of course would destroy any dinosaur bones.

BUT: Dating can be found by identifying the layer that the bones are found in, and then searching the same layer near by where there are igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma in the same layer, or even volcanic ash. By being able to date the rock this way, the fossils found in the sedimentary layers from the same time period can be achieved.

So you date the fossil by the rock, and the rock by the fossil?

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
So you date the fossil by the rock, and the rock by the fossil?

Why not use all available sources of information?

Would you have us ignore one or the other?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
So you date the fossil by the rock, and the rock by the fossil?

Why not use all available sources of information?

Would you have us ignore one or the other?

What I mean is, that is circular reasoning is that not?

a reply to: IndependentAgent

No the sediments form layers, not circles, so you could call the reasoning chronologically layered, but not circular. The sediments are sequenced in chronological order.

originally posted by: IndependentAgent


So you will not find any dinosaur fossils younger than 10,000 years, mainly because the did not exist back then. But do you get fossils younger that 10,000 year?

Well...the fossils were still in the ground. They existed then, they exist now. Anything labeled as a 'fossil' is generally any preserved biological remains older than 10,000 years. So I guess, no, there are no fossils younger than 10,000 years.