It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Earth is 6,000 Years Old"

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Im standing on Canadian shield rock that is 4 and a half billion years old
guess the bible is wrong again

this wouldn't be the same divine entity that says the earth is only a couple nano seconds old that also
told all the evangelicals to vote bush?
edit on 7-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Nah - he won't say what his basis is - he says it isn't' the bible. Possibly is is the BS "science" put out by a bunch of people calling themselves "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth project" (R.A.T.E.) that claims that radiometric dating is all wrong.

Maybe it is something else but he won't admit what his basis is so this is my guess - probably afraid of being laughed at like these guys have been so is following a fairly common conspiracy tactic of refusing to actually back up his claims therefore no-one gets to show how stupid they are.

Nuclear decay - evidence of a young earth - here's their basic premis published on a xcreationist website

And criticisms of the theory:

it is based on "bad assumptions and questionable data"

and it is more faulty creation science



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

The age of rocks is usually determined by radioactive (or radiometric) dating. Some elements are radioactive and gradually convert from one isotope to another. For example, uranium 238 (238U) will gradually convert to lead (206Pb). It will do this at a constant rate. The rate is described as a half-life of the isotope in question. This is the period of time it takes for half the atoms of 238U to convert to lead. For this particular element, the half-life is 4.47 billion years and uranium/lead dating is useful for rocks between 1 million and 4.5 billion years (as luck would have it!).


Radiometric dating can only be performed on igneous rocks. The uranium/lead elements are most often used because igneous rocks often contain uranium and the half life is so long. The oldest rock found is around 4.54 billion years old. This is consistent with the age of rocks from the moon and from meteorites, which all point to an age around 4.54-4.56 billion years.
wiki.answers.com...


God created uranium decay and half life just so Christians could call him a lier



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The Canadian Shield has some of the oldest surface rocks originating on Earth. Many times I've slept on them while up north camping. It's an awesome, primeval landscape.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina
 


Which part of the basis of Uranium-lead method didn't you understand?

I thought you were going to discuss the maths - which seem simple enough - and show us all why it is wrong.

The basis of the U-Pb method seems simple enough - there are 2 isotopes of lead formed from 2 isotopes of Uranium.

U235 decays into Pb207 with a half life of about 0.7 giga-years.

U238 decays to Pb206 with a half life of about 4.47 G-years.

there is also Pb204 - a non-radiogenic lead isotope.

the ratio of Pb207/Pb 204 to Pb206/Pb204 produces a curve in time, or, by recalling that the ratio of U235/U238 is a constant, by the ratio of the Pb isotopes depending upon the amount of U238 in the mineral at the time of crystalisation.

So what is wrong with it?



Dude... All you are doing is PARROTING what you read.

You have absolutely ZERO comprehension of what you are saying.


it seems perfectly clear to me at about a year 12 or 13 high school level of chemistry and physics - there's nothing particularly complicated about it at all really.



Let me show you guys the 'technical' curve that is apparently the source of ole Alyosius's smugness.

Chart

Alyosius... I'm CONVINCED!





That is part of the information that is around - so what is it that is actually wrong about it?

If someone could derive the information above solely from that graph they would certainly be a lot cleverer than me - I had to have a look at a whole bunch of text and formulae, and a similar but actually different graph that had more detail.

So - again - you have the mathematical basis for U-Pb radiometric dating, and apparently you are going to show us what the problem is with it?

How come you don't?

And how come you don't actually give us any evidence at all for your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

You seem big on denigrating everyone else......but have no actual substance yourself despite your grand claims - is your inability to discuss any actual mathematics because, in fact, it is you that doesn't understand anty of it??




Seriously dude! You get ALL of the above from this Chart?

That's a WHOLE lot of dogma... desperately seeking an url for yet more DETAILED 'evidence'!





So - again - you have the mathematical basis for U-Pb radiometric dating, and apparently you are going to show us what the problem is with it?


Patience Iago!

We'll get to that in due time...

Remember... we are still waiting a respectful amount of time... You know... For someone that actually HAS A CLUE about dating methodologies...

Not a sad sad comedy of reasoning and rigor.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Im standing on Canadian shield rock that is 4 and a half billion years old
guess the bible is wrong again

this wouldn't be the same divine entity that says the earth is only a couple nano seconds old that also
told all the evangelicals to vote bush?
edit on 7-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


'4 and a half billion years old'?

What... You were a witness?

That's one long camping trip.

We have something similar here in the Northwest... It covers majors part of eastern Washington and Oregon. These days it is referred to as the Columbia River Basalt Group.

There is a lot of variance in the dating of these flows. Typically between 10-20 millions years depending on who is providing the 'Chart'.

The place it gets interesting is when an artifact is dragged out from UNDERNEATH these 'ancient' flows that is only a few thousand years old...

There's a quandry.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bonsaihorn
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


OMG you people are SO close minded... the earth isn't 6,000 years old, it is 5,997 years 11 months and 14 days old, come on a little precision please!

The Earth is also flat remember???

theflatearthsociety.org...



That is some serious 'dating steerology' Samlf3rd.


It is easy to make fun of those guys...

One of the things most observers have is a difficulty of separating themselves from their OWN theoretical bedrock (which IS, of course, RELIGIOUS)...

Witness 'the Big Bang' theory (a creationist myth), you know where 'nothingness'... SUDDENLY became 'somethingness'!

You know...

0 = 1!

(Is that enough Math(s) for you Alyosius?)



Or my personal favorite... 'We are the only intelligent species in the Universe!' (a GEOCENTRIC mindset)

Yes, we have come a long ways.

In the old days, those guys mistakenly thought that the solar system revolved around the Earth...

Luckily we FIXED that!

And now...

Apparently, it would seem it is the Universe that revolves around the Earth.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


what would you say if I told you that the old testament was written by those in service to a bloodline that later wrote the new testament and that the purpose of said books was nothing more than to enslave the masses
please give this a read, feel free to check it for accuracy,sources, genealogical info etc.

www.fargonasphere.com...

just given what you've already written I doubt you'll pull a complete 180 and abandon the fairy tale despite the evidence for it, the blind are led by faith after all



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Seriously dude! You get ALL of the above from this Chart?


no.


That's a WHOLE lot of dogma... desperately seeking an url for yet more DETAILED 'evidence'!



I thought you knew it already & were going to show us why radiometric dating that says the world is 4.5 billion years old (more or less) was wrong??


But all you ever do is avoid the question, fail to justify your position, and spout nonsense.

Of course that is what is expected on ATS - but I did have some hopes you were going to be different.


Remember... we are still waiting a respectful amount of time... You know... For someone that actually HAS A CLUE about dating methodologies...


Well it is only you who has not shown any signs of having a clue.


Not a sad sad comedy of reasoning and rigor.


You are the only one to blame for that - perhaps you could stop hiding behind excuses?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzraelBane
reply to post by golemina
 


what would you say if I told you that the old testament was written by those in service to a bloodline that later wrote the new testament and that the purpose of said books was nothing more than to enslave the masses
please give this a read, feel free to check it for accuracy,sources, genealogical info etc.

www.fargonasphere.com...

just given what you've already written I doubt you'll pull a complete 180 and abandon the fairy tale despite the evidence for it, the blind are led by faith after all



Hey.


Interesting premise... but not really related.

I ain't exactly a Bible thumper...

But my statements with regards to the Old Testament... are fairly clear.

Despite repeated attempts to... at best... 'mis-characterize' them.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


So still no actual discussion or refutation of radiometric dating from you then?

quelle surprise



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by AzraelBane
reply to post by golemina
 


what would you say if I told you that the old testament was written by those in service to a bloodline that later wrote the new testament and that the purpose of said books was nothing more than to enslave the masses
please give this a read, feel free to check it for accuracy,sources, genealogical info etc.

www.fargonasphere.com...

just given what you've already written I doubt you'll pull a complete 180 and abandon the fairy tale despite the evidence for it, the blind are led by faith after all



Hey.


Interesting premise... but not really related.

I ain't exactly a Bible thumper...

But my statements with regards to the Old Testament... are fairly clear.

Despite repeated attempts to... at best... 'mis-characterize' them.



too funny I was saying to myself earlier I bet the first thing said would be that it isn't related.
it's completely related seeing as the 6000 year old earth theory comes from what they call "young earth creationism" which draws all of it's "proof" from the bible. if it turns out that the people who were said to have written the bible didn't and the intention for creating those books was for control and not to pass on some divine knowledge given to them by a god then it would stand to reason that you or anyone else trying to cite the bible as a reference is like me going "hey check out this wiki link". also I'm curious what your stake in this is, how can you not be a bible thumper if you are defending faulty theories crafted by Y.E.C's in the first place? no legitimate scientist has ever suggested that the earth is at such a young age or that the multiple methods used for dating organic and inorganic material are all wrong. i'd say if you had proof it would have been presented by now rather than dodging when people ask you questions.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by golemina
Seriously dude! You get ALL of the above from this Chart?


no.


That's a WHOLE lot of dogma... desperately seeking an url for yet more DETAILED 'evidence'!



I thought you knew it already & were going to show us why radiometric dating that says the world is 4.5 billion years old (more or less) was wrong??



You're like a puppy chasing it's tail...

Performing endless rhetorical spins with apparently little interest in a true and exact record of our 'exchanges'.





But all you ever do is avoid the question, fail to justify your position, and spout nonsense.


Ok...




Of course that is what is expected on ATS - but I did have some hopes you were going to be different.



Different (guilt) tack...

Nice work.

========================

Remember... we are still waiting a respectful amount of time... You know... For someone that actually HAS A CLUE about dating methodologies...


Well it is only you who has not shown any signs of having a clue.


Not a sad sad comedy of reasoning and rigor.


You are the only one to blame for that - perhaps you could stop hiding behind excuses?

========================

Dude... I'm here to help you.



If you want to graduate up the 'debunker' ranks and maybe BEGIN to sound like you have got any clue of what is going on...

You know... actually begin to use the vernacular of the subject area...

Be a nice 'debunker' and go read up on the trappings of the UNIFORMATARIANS (Read: uniformitarianism) vs CATASTROPHISM.

So do you ever plan on answering the question vis-a-vis the 'first sample' from the Enumclaw plateau?

Hmmm...

I think you're making REMARKABLE progress... I mean look at EVERYTHING you've learned along the way.

You know... We WON'T be using a C14 test against the sample.



I feel for you Alyosius... It's kind of like when the need for instant gratification runs into an apparently infinite amount of patience.




edit on 8-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos+grouping of quotes.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

So do you ever plan on answering the question vis-a-vis the 'first sample' from the Enumclaw plateau?



No-one has asked any questions about any samples from the Enumclaw plateau - so no, I have no plans on answering any questions that have not been asked.

You have said you have some samples from there of course, but you haven't bothered to tell us anything about them other than that you have them. Do you ever plan to tell us any actual information about them? Or even to ask a question about them??

It seems to me you are going to claim that your ideas have never been debunked or something like that - which is of course kind of trivial since you have never actually bothered to provide any actual ideas or information.

I am thinking that perhaps your posts are just some of the output from the ol' 1000 monkeys in a room with 1000 typewriters!!



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Iconic
 


John Pendleton - chemist.

This guy adds another proof to my thinking that this existence can't be real. Here's a man that apparently spent many years in college, where his mind was trained in the art of critical thinking. And he comes up with the earth is 6000 years old? How can this happen? How can someboy with his level of education be THAT stupid???

I can understand a failing high school student coming up with this crap, but a chemist?? Jeez!



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well chemists are people too - and subject to all the foibles of being human.

That is why peer review, publication and reproduce-ability are all important parts of science - as a constant, ongoing QA system.

the RATE project I mentioned above is run by a bunch of creationist-believing PhD's - RATE project page



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Dude.


Hey, I want to apologize for taking the liberty of reformatting your stuff...

I wanted to give it some semblance of organization.



Originally posted by AzraelBane

too funny I was saying to myself earlier I bet the first thing said would be that it isn't related.
it's completely related seeing as the 6000 year old earth theory comes from what they call "young earth creationism" which draws all of it's "proof" from the bible.
.

Hey, apparently you guessed right.


It may come as a serious shock to you...

But I am a Scientist.





if it turns out that the people who were said to have written the bible didn't and the intention for creating those books was for control and not to pass on some divine knowledge given to them by a god then it would stand to reason that you or anyone else trying to cite the bible as a reference is like me going "hey check out this wiki link".


Lot of truth in that statement, especially if you differentiate between the Old and New Testaments. I'm sure you know it gets political (and emotional) fairly quickly.





also I'm curious what your stake in this is, how can you not be a bible thumper if you are defending faulty theories crafted by Y.E.C's in the first place?


As a Scientist, when you are pursuing a line of research it's important to recognize and deal with your OWN built-in biases...

As such, it's important to realize that discarding a source such as the Bible IN IT'S ENTIRETY is nothing short of a prejudice that interferes with the desired result...

Which is VALID DATA.

When as a researcher you turn off the EMOTIONAL ATTRIBUTES that some people want to attach to the raw input data...

You become more effective.

So... when you recognize the Bible in it's correct HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE...

You achieve a superior understanding...

And wind in bed with ...some strange bedfellows... like the BRILLIANT Velikovsky.

And LIKE IT OR NOT... When someone gets it right...

And this is the MOST IMPORTANT part... Is it is VERIFIABLE in the field.

As a Scientist, you HAVE to say, comfortable with it or not... he got it right!

That's REAL Science.



no legitimate scientist has ever suggested that the earth is at such a young age or that the multiple methods used for dating organic and inorganic material are all wrong.


Not accurate... In SO many ways.

Unfortunately, we just slipped back into 'Science'...





i'd say if you had proof it would have been presented by now rather than dodging when people ask you questions.



It's important to recognize the nature of statements and this slips all the way down into conjecture...

Nah. Some guys want to turn this into yet another sad thread...

Me, I think it's entirely possible to carry this discussion at a VERY HIGH level...

And will CONTINUE to do that...

Despite the attempts, by some
, to turn it into a circus side show complete with Charts!



edit on 8-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Despite the attempts, by some
, to turn it into a circus side show complete with Charts!




Yes - god forbid that anyone would dare to introduce actual science into suggested discussion about radiometric dating


And you re certainly following that ban very well!!



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by golemina

So do you ever plan on answering the question vis-a-vis the 'first sample' from the Enumclaw plateau?



No-one has asked any questions about any samples from the Enumclaw plateau - so no, I have no plans on answering any questions that have not been asked.

You have said you have some samples from there of course, but you haven't bothered to tell us anything about them other than that you have them. Do you ever plan to tell us any actual information about them? Or even to ask a question about them??

It seems to me you are going to claim that your ideas have never been debunked or something like that - which is of course kind of trivial since you have never actually bothered to provide any actual ideas or information.

I am thinking that perhaps your posts are just some of the output from the ol' 1000 monkeys in a room with 1000 typewriters!!


The question you were asked (and ignored) oh VERY SELECTIVE memory-impaired one...

With regards to the sample obtained (it's now days ago... due to YOUR constant foot-dragging Alyosius!
).

What is the first question you should be asking me about the sample?

Hmmm....



edit on 8-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos!




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by golemina
Despite the attempts, by some
, to turn it into a circus side show complete with Charts!




Yes - god forbid that anyone would dare to introduce actual science into suggested discussion about radiometric dating


And you re certainly following that ban very well!!


And here I thought the answer to life, the universe and everything was 42...

Apparently, Aloysius has raised the bar... And the NEW answer to life, the universe and everything is Aloysius's apparently ALL-SEEING ALL-KNOWING Chart!

ALL that you have added to this discussion is a link (or two)...

It's NOT science.

It's just a hypertext link... to a file... parked on a server somewhere...

That you being unable to provide ANY detailed information in YOUR OWN WORDS, apparently have NO understanding about...

I am talking too fast for you... as in NO COMPREHENSION.

I'm going to keep asking you the question...

Explain to me, IN DETAIL, how to date the sample from the Enumclaw plateau.

Was that questionie enough for you?

Hint: It's got NOTHING to do with your apparently ALL-SEEING ALL-KNOWING Chart!


edit on 8-5-2012 by golemina because: Added a joke!




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join