The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

Pretty fascinating paper that shows the discrepancies between radiometric dating and carbon dating, though that was probably not it's intention. It's summed up well in the second to last paragraph. www.plosone.org...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by romanmel

 

reply to post by romanmel

 

... Atheists aren't a homogeneous group by any stretch of the imagination. Some atheists are practically saints, others are amongst the worst people on the planet...which basically describes most groups of people on the planet that share only a single common trait (in this case the disbelief in any deity).

Perhaps your time would be better spent educating those athiests who are "...amongst the worst people on the planet." It would help eradicate some of the misconceptions about your lot.

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1

I must first apologize for even posting in this thread, but this is seriously insane! Anyone that would pay attention to a so called "article or two", listed somewhere on the internet about the age of the Earth being 6,000 years old has a lot of time to waste.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know, I didn't have to add to this discussion, but this is crazy IMHO.

Agreed!

But athiests indeed have little to do with their time but to encourage arguments with Christians over such tripe. It's what they do to try to ignore that still small voice that is calling them to God. They truely do need our prayers.

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1

I must first apologize for even posting in this thread, but this is seriously insane! Anyone that would pay attention to a so called "article or two", listed somewhere on the internet about the age of the Earth being 6,000 years old has a lot of time to waste.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know, I didn't have to add to this discussion, but this is crazy IMHO.

Well then, please don't. This thread is already hard enough to sift through without baseless posts that add nothing to the debate and do not offer even an opinion on the topic at hand. Not trying to be a jerk but everyone here is sifting through the thread and this takes everyone off topic.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
6-10k years old may be when humans were seeded with intelligence? Who knows once again.

Yes, who knows..it could be just a metaphore of days to galactic cycles or as you suggest, when humans were seeded with intelligence, or...

wait...what...seeded with intelligence? 0o
whats that all about? You say you got a PhD...oh, let me go get some popcorn as you try to discuss what you meant by that...

Quote me and bold exactly where I say "I have a PhD" please and thanks.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


How about you prove that there has ever been a man-made object found in coal? I know more or less all of the stories about them, they're tired old creationist talking points and they're all either frauds or pranks.

reply to post by jimnuggits

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Let me ask you something, OP...

Why?

What do you think is going to happen here?

Fourteen pages later and you've convinced exactly zero people to change whatever bone head notions they may have about the beginning of the Earth.

Last I checked, most threads got a lot more readers than posters. I'm doing this for those people who aren't going to post but are sitting on the fence about these issues.

To be fair, even the most accepted, scientifically 'validated' dates are conjecture, since no one alive was there at the time.

How are they conjecture when they are tested? How does being there make things more valid? Nobody was there, but there is the exact evidence that we need to figure things out. Just like a good hunter can check a set of tracks and tell you about how large and about how fast an animal was going, our scientific methods can tell you how old the Earth is...within a 1% margin of error.

Up until 500 years ago, the best theory around stated that the earth was flat, and you were a moron if you believed anything different.

Please, your ignorance is showing. The first calculation of the circumference of a spherical Earth came from Ancient Greece...there was already ample evidence to show that the Earth was round and it had been demonstrated hundreds of years prior to the foundation of the Christian religion.

Are you so incredibly arrogant that you can't accept that maybe, just maybe, science is wrong about this?

Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary of the point I see no reason to start flinging accusations of arrogance.

It seems to me you may just be picking a fight with feeble minded simpletons in order to elevate yourself intellectually. Bad form, my friend.

You can do better.

So it's the ol' "question motives, make ignorant claims, insult" formula I've seen dozens of times in this thread already.

reply to post by dbates


Well, that's the idea of a snowball Earth...if we had a global flood it would be an entirely different situation and would have a single 'flood boundary' layer that would be found uniformly around the Earth.

reply to post by Masterjaden


No, they all have. Provide an example of one that hasn't. Hell, one was found to be a prank pulled by some mine workers.

reply to post by Masterjaden


reply to post by Masterjaden


I don't have the time to explain it all here, but I can assure you the answers to all of your questions are actually out there. You can find them in a University level text that deals with radiometric dating from a physics standpoint.

reply to post by redoubt


Sorry, big thread. Missing a few posts here and there happens. Didn't mean to.

Why is it so important? Because having your ideas conform to reality is a good thing. It's a sign of maturity. Oh, and the people that believe the 6-10,000 thing are itching to have it taught in schools because they consider science a religion.

reply to post by Bilw85

Originally posted by Bilw85
To all the scientific minds: I believe the bible is really God's word.

Okay, but why does that mean you have to take it literally? Last I checked, your deity was fond of parables here on Earth.

You may be right...I may be totally blinded about my wacky beliefs. But if it keeps me from becoming venomous and spiteful such as youselves, then it was a gain for me in my ignorance.

I'm not venomous nor am I spiteful, I merely must point out that it is wrong to go against reality.

Noone knows with certainty, any truth. To says you do moves you into the realm of faith.

No, it's not faith to say that something is or is not when you have mountains upon mountains of evidence to make a claim.

reply to post by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Most of the most renowned scientists were christian,

Stupid argument, for a great portion of history it was a death sentence to be anything other than Christian or at the very least the loss of work, family, social circle, etc.

And their renown came about because they were isolated individuals who didn't have the communication network or academic community that is present today. We have few instances of isolated individuals working on scientific ideas all on their own today because collaboration works better. We have magnitudes more scientists in the top percentile today than they had total scientists back in the time of Newton.

I have hardly devolved or ever stated any nonsense, I have only stated logically founded beliefs and interpretations of the truly available evidences. So your statement that one side issues logic and rational and the other devolves into name calling and rant is laughable at best.

You have stated quite a bit of nonsense based on a Discovery channel level understanding of relativity...hell, you even claimed that relativity was unproven.

The scientific establishment of modern times does as much to hide scientific truth as the church of the past and for the same reasons, to control the masses and to increase their power base.

Citation needed.

reply to post by joshnichols189


Just look into the crime rates in Sweden, Finland, and Norway which are three of the most secular nations in the world. Check prison intake statistics that ask about religion. Check the divorce rates of Atheists, Agnostics, and the non-religious.

reply to post by LosLobos

Originally posted by LosLobos

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Because I actually bothered to study philosophy.

I know things.

Philosophers told us the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Yes, it's why I made the statement in regard to questions of epistemology rather than science. I do not get my answers about the natural world from philosophy but from science. And you're talking about pre-scientific eras. They didn't know any better.

Then they said the Earth was flat. Those old times guys were philosophers first and scientist second.

And philosophy didn't stop way back in 'old times', as there are active philosophers up to this day.

Science evolved from basic beliefs in philosophy. In other words, if you feel strongly about something then just fill in the blanks with nonsense no one can figure out. Then call it a theory. Its not until a decade or so do people figure out it was bunk and come up with another theory.

Wow, you really know nothing about science. Please, give me an actual example of this sort of thing happening. I've asked you repeatedly.

Point being this. We don't even know if the Sun will shine in 8 minutes or so. WHY, because it takes 8 minutes for sunlight to reach us. SOHO may give us a second or two but other than that there is no way to know. We have a pretty good idea it will. But no one can state with 100% certainty it will shine in 8 minutes or so.

Which is why I brought up "I study philosophy" because I've addressed this infantile assertion that not being 100% epistemologically certain is no hamper upon science because science is about making testable claims. It doesn't matter if you can't be 100% certain if they'll work the next time because you're 99.9999999% certain and you really can't give a flying fornication about those people who bother with questions of certainty.

Science works. You know how I know? You are using a computer!

Originally posted by Helious
One cannot rely totally on carbon dating. It has been shown to be flawed recently and caught many people off guard. This is still being hashed out but you must consider that what we once thought we knew, maybe, has to be re calculated.

No it hasn't, they figured out that the effect of the sun on decay rates is predictable and they've figured out how to calibrate and compensate around it.

WTF? Who said the earth was only 6000-10000 years old? I thought the consensus was it was billions of years old.
I don't get it. Is the op trying out a joke? It wasn't funny.

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
FFS

I can't stand when people who study science at a university start spewing the word "science/scientific/science*" in their argument so much that if you replaced it with the word God you would sound like a cultist.

Well, if you start using the jargon people might get turned off. I'd rather say 'scientific methods' rather than 'radiometric methods' to a lay audience.

Militant Atheists that feel compelled to force the "You're wrong on all accounts" with the blindfold on drives me up the tree. I think they're just trolls hijacking science

That's why I actually bother to study science even though I'm not a student of science academically.

like the terrorists hijack islam.

Try reading the Qu'ran sometime, not really 'hijacking' something that's clearly stated.

Also, I'm just going to point out the irony in this:

I'll tell you that I'd say I'm almost 100% sure that the world is 4.6 billion years old, give or take some due to carbon dating...etc

I'm sorry, which science do you have a degree in? Carbon dating doesn't have much to do with the age of the Earth due to the half life being too short and the carbon cycle.

And frankly, if we can't tell people that they're flat out wrong then the scientific consensus sort of has no basis.

reply to post by guitarplayer


False dilemma.

Or those stories are mythic stories that build upon the experiences of local flooding. And there's a Norse flood myth? I was unaware of one.

Frankly, we should have geologic evidence if the thing really happened.

reply to post by painterdude


What? Can you give me a specific point in the article that talks about dating method discrepancies? And why wouldn't there be a mild level of discrepancy between radiocarbon and other radiometric methods? They work on different scales.

A good way to explain it is like this. You're given two rulers, neither has incremental markings. One is a foot long and the other a yard long. You then measure a room with the yard long ruler and decide that the room is about 24 feet long because you can only fit the ruler in it 8 times and there's some left over. Then you measure it with the foot long, and it fits 25 times so you say that the room is about 25 feet long.

...but the room is actually 25 feet, 6 inches long.

Radiometric dating doesn't work incredibly well and that's a slightly sloppy metaphor explaining why.