"Earth is 6,000 Years Old"

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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

'Reproduce-ability'?

Good.

Reproduce 'the Big Bang'!

Please feel free to use WHATEVER resources ('peer review, publication and reproduce-ability are all important parts of science - as a constant, ongoing QA system') you have at your disposal.

I will patiently wait here...

reply to post by golemina


Why should I bother answering your questions?? Especially stupid ones.....although I havent' actually sen you ask any intelligent ones.

When are you going to ask about those samples you have?

Wen are you going to actually discuss any science instead of just mouthing off??

I guess you think that asking me to reproduce the big bang counts as science or something? Naturally what it dose is show that you do not actually understand what you are talking about.

This might help further your education -

The basic principle is that, for any research program, an independent researcher should be able to replicate the experiment, under the same conditions, and achieve the same results.

- from here

I am not really confident you will e able to comprehend that....but it is the best I can do at the moment.

And to apply it to your nonsensical idea of reproducing the big bang - since no-one has claimed to have produced a big bang there is, therefore, nothing to reproduce.

there are, of course, many experiments looking into the conditions that are thought to have existed in the first few moments after the big bang, and experiments looking for remaining evidence of the big bang. You are perfectly free to replicate those if you have the resources.

anyway - on to the idiots over at "RATE" - this is an amazing laugh - apparently the DNA of cattle is traceable back to about 80 Aurochs, and therefore this ties in better with the bible than evolution.

The article is the Daily Science Update for 7 May, and reads, in part:

Researchers found that very few members in the founding population of domestic cattle existed, indicating that ancient humans caught wild aurochs and bred them to be domesticated, similar or identical to recent domestication of wild foxes.

And these results support biblical history, rather than evolutionary history, in at least two ways. First, domestication should have occurred soon after the Flood in the Middle East, since that is where Noah's ark landed and post-Flood populations took root. Likewise, domesticated pear and apple trees, wheat,3 small dogs,4 and—according to a University College London press release reporting Bollongino's research results—"goats, sheep and pigs" also originated in the Middle East.5

Second, in order to domesticate cattle from a few select wild aurochs, ancient people must have been just as smart and strong, if not more so, as the people of today.6 No good evidence backs evolutionary claims of brutish, ape-ish human ancestry

apparently the missed the point that their footnote 5 is titled: "DNA traces cattle back to a small herd domesticated around 10,500 years ago" - 10.5 k years ago would be about 4500 years before the putative 6000 year old earth actually existed!! So how could that have happened after the flood??

oops!

And they seem to have missed the generally accepted information that humans of the time would be homo-sapien - ie the same species that is around today...and not any sort of "brutish, ape-ish human".

double-oops

Originally posted by DAVID64
I don't think the issue of "is there a God" will ever be truly answered.
There are theologians who are scientists.
There are atheists who are scientists.
To me, some are trying to use their own version of science to prove their beliefs.
Some try to prove their point by skewing time. "Well, our time and God's time are different, so a thousand years to us, are a billion to Him". Or something like, I can't keep track.
The Earth is not 6000 years old, God is not playing tricks to test you.

Please tell me what scientiist DOESN'T know that it took 13-something billion light years for the light from the furthest galaxy to reach us. Light, as in light from suns, with planets around those suns. And yet, our planet with all of it's billion's of years old sea fossils, millions of years old dinosaur fossils was created 6,000 years ago? If a scientist doesn't know this, he should be FIRED from whatever he's doing!

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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

'Reproduce-ability'?

Good.

Reproduce 'the Big Bang'!

Please feel free to use WHATEVER resources ('peer review, publication and reproduce-ability are all important parts of science - as a constant, ongoing QA system') you have at your disposal.

I will patiently wait here...

How about a sperm connecting to an egg? That has to be the mother of all micro big bangs, wouldn't ya think?

reply to post by jiggerj


You need to consider that he is also a fan of Velikovsky - which is to say he's just another conspiracy nut hell bent on convincing himself the impossible is actually real.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina

 

Why should I bother answering your questions??

Especially stupid ones.....although I havent' actually sen you ask any intelligent ones.

When are you going to ask about those samples you have?

Wen are you going to actually discuss any science instead of just mouthing off??

I guess you think that asking me to reproduce the big bang counts as science or something? Naturally what it dose is show that you do not actually understand what you are talking about.

This might help further your education -

The basic principle is that, for any research program, an independent researcher should be able to replicate the experiment, under the same conditions, and achieve the same results.

- from here

I am not really confident you will e able to comprehend that....but it is the best I can do at the moment.

And to apply it to your nonsensical idea of reproducing the big bang - since no-one has claimed to have produced a big bang there is, therefore, nothing to reproduce.

there are, of course, many experiments looking into the conditions that are thought to have existed in the first few moments after the big bang, and experiments looking for remaining evidence of the big bang. You are perfectly free to replicate those if you have the resources.

anyway - on to the idiots over at "RATE" - this is an amazing laugh - apparently the DNA of cattle is traceable back to about 80 Aurochs, and therefore this ties in better with the bible than evolution.

The article is the Daily Science Update for 7 May, and reads, in part:

Researchers found that very few members in the founding population of domestic cattle existed, indicating that ancient humans caught wild aurochs and bred them to be domesticated, similar or identical to recent domestication of wild foxes.

And these results support biblical history, rather than evolutionary history, in at least two ways. First, domestication should have occurred soon after the Flood in the Middle East, since that is where Noah's ark landed and post-Flood populations took root. Likewise, domesticated pear and apple trees, wheat,3 small dogs,4 and—according to a University College London press release reporting Bollongino's research results—"goats, sheep and pigs" also originated in the Middle East.5

Second, in order to domesticate cattle from a few select wild aurochs, ancient people must have been just as smart and strong, if not more so, as the people of today.6 No good evidence backs evolutionary claims of brutish, ape-ish human ancestry

apparently the missed the point that their footnote 5 is titled: "DNA traces cattle back to a small herd domesticated around 10,500 years ago" - 10.5 k years ago would be about 4500 years before the putative 6000 year old earth actually existed!! So how could that have happened after the flood??

oops!

And they seem to have missed the generally accepted information that humans of the time would be homo-sapien - ie the same species that is around today...and not any sort of "brutish, ape-ish human".

double-oops

edit on 8-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Add the missing link (sic)

Why would you bother answering you ask?

Because that what a Scientist would do...



So let me get this right...

Your questions are 'intelligent'? (And NEED to be answered!)

Questions asked by someone from the opposing viewpoint are NOT 'intelligent' (And can thus be simply ignored?)



So in your little delusional world... Pretty much ANYTHING can be advocated.

The FACT that you can NOT REPRODUCE the 'Big Bang' INVALIDATES the 'Big Bang' theory.

You can slip and slide all over the places... You simply can't get away from that.

What you are engaged in is FRAUD.

Kind of like your 'participation' in this thread... It is FRAUDULENT.

You are NOT an honest observer.

You are NOT an interlocutor for anything even approximating the truth...



During the course of this thread... You have come up with some beauts!

C14 testing on 'rocks' will forever be my favorite!



Just like you'll forever be my favorite poseur.

In the world of 'radiometric dating' determining the method that SHOULD be utilized to 'date' my sample retrieved from the Enumclaw plateau is STANDARD FARE.

But somehow, Alyosius being the self-appointed GUARDIAN OF ALL THINGS SCIENCE...

Is NOT able to produce something so simple as sharing with us the standard procedure that he would recommend to actually accomplish this task.

We are STILL waiting Aloysius.

Originally posted by golemina
Why would you bother answering you ask?

Because that what a Scientist would do...

How would you know what a scientist would do??

I have never described myself as a scientist - so why do you think that such a criteria would apply to me??

Actually AFAIK a scientist might or might not choose to answer any given question - "scientists" are certainly not obligated to do so - just another bit of info to further your education.

So let me get this right...

Your questions are 'intelligent'? (And NEED to be answered!)

I would love for you to get something right - sadly looks like you missed again

My questions do not NEED to be answered - but you said you were going to provide some information so I keep asking you when are you going to do so.

Are you now saying that you cannot provide the info you said you were going to?

If not is that because you weren't quite telling the truth when you said you were going to discuss radiometric dating?

Questions asked by someone from the opposing viewpoint are NOT 'intelligent' (And can thus be simply ignored?)

If the cap fits.......

So why is it you persistently fail to provide the info you said you would provide and try to change the subject all the time?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by golemina
Why would you bother answering you ask?

Because that what a Scientist would do...

How would you know what a scientist would do??

I have never described myself as a scientist - so why do you think that such a criteria would apply to me??

Actually AFAIK a scientist might or might not choose to answer any given question - "scientists" are certainly not obligated to do so - just another bit of info to further your education.

So let me get this right...

Your questions are 'intelligent'? (And NEED to be answered!)

I would love for you to get something right - sadly looks like you missed again

My questions do not NEED to be answered - but you said you were going to provide some information so I keep asking you when are you going to do so.

Are you now saying that you cannot provide the info you said you were going to?

If not is that because you weren't quite telling the truth when you said you were going to discuss radiometric dating?

Questions asked by someone from the opposing viewpoint are NOT 'intelligent' (And can thus be simply ignored?)

If the cap fits.......

So why is it you persistently fail to provide the info you said you would provide and try to change the subject all the time?

edit on 8-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Hey.

Aloysius, brother... IF you want ANY kind of response from me...

You either PUT up the procedure to convert this rock into a dated sample (and I admit that I am wrong)

Or you don't (in which case, you will be ignored...)

So... to get this show back on the road...

The discussion is about math/methodology/basis.

The first area that we will cover is the THEORETICAL BASIS.

What this basically amounts to is the reality framework that events are believed to have supposedly occurred in at some point in the past.

The major flaw with with the 'mainstream' dating technologies/methodologies it is based on a fairy tale quality HUMAN PSYCHIC NEED to project a sense of normalcy, stability and unending continuity. And that somehow, magically, almost every physical attribute of the planet has ALWAYS been the same as it is NOW!

This artificial need has given rise to the school of thought in Geology, etc sometimes referred to as GRADUALISM.

(In the next installment, we will get into some of the inherent flaws of this school of thought, the major contradictions that exist with other 'mainstream' areas and MOST importantly how this absurd thinking has become the bedrock of a totally flawed circular logic scheme that has few correlations to the physical world... You know... the place called Earth. )

Originally posted by golemina
Aloysius, brother... IF you want ANY kind of response from me...

You either PUT up the procedure to convert this rock into a dated sample (and I admit that I am wrong)

Why do I have to give you a procedure?? Why not just take it to a lab that performs dating tests??

Really - are you so bereft of ideas that you cannot figure that much out??

Originally posted by golemina
The major flaw with with the 'mainstream' dating technologies/methodologies it is based on a fairy tale quality HUMAN PSYCHIC NEED to project a sense of normalcy, stability and unending continuity. And that somehow, magically, almost every physical attribute of the planet has ALWAYS been the same as it is NOW!

And how do you know that is the case?

wait, so what are they saying is wrong with carbon dating??

is it that they believe its wrong because its been recycled through the movement of the plates or something?? am i wrong?

From the look of the latest diatribe we are possibly about to be introduced to some form of Catastrophism - this is further supported by the previous characterisation of Velikovsky as an overlooked genius and his connection to this theory.

Of course it remains to be seen if I am correct in this guess or not - perhaps the revelation that this theory is not actually news and has been discredited for decades has frightened him off?

Or it might be that he has realised that his characterisation of gradualism as the dominant paradigm of geology is not quite true and doesn't want to embarrass himself further???

Although geologists may argue about the extent of catastrophism in shaping the earth, modern geologists interpret many formations and events as resulting from an interplay catastrophic and uniform forces that result in more slowly evolving change.

- here

Personally I'd just like to know what the basis of the evidence he says he has actually is - if for no other reason than to broaden my own knowledge!!

Fossil fuel
Erosion
Radioactive Decay
and umm...Hawaii.

Pretty much all I need to know to confirm that Earth is greater than 6,000 years old.

Originally posted by golemina
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.

lets get this straight....
1. The formatting was fine. I don't feel the need to drag a post down a whole page,add empty lines in between sentence fragments, or TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO GET A POINT ACROSS!
2. to actually try and claim you are a scientist is laughable, independent fringe researcher maybe but a scientist? scientists provide data to back up their claims. you make claims and don't support them with any evidence. sure you say you have evidence but when asked for proof or data you duck the questions like a white house press briefing.
3. the bible is not valid data, either testament so don't even try that. it's funny how all of the stories go back to civilizations that predate the bible yet the "God crowd" always wants to try and yell "First!"
4. it took looking at the evidence from an unbiased point in order to come to the conclusions that I have now. here's a shocker, I used to be an avid believer until I slowly started realizing things didn't add up.
5. Velikovsky is far from brilliant and his theories are based around the stories in the bible, *Pro-tip* if you make a theory from initially flawed information your theory isn't worth the napkin you wrote it on. and please show me one of his "theories" that have actually been confirmed by anyone other than himself
(well known example of a theory built on flawed info: Body Mass Index, www.npr.org...)
6. all you can say to "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." is "Not accurate in SO many ways" really? prove it. show me one respectable scientist that has claimed the earth is 6,000 years old and that all dating methods are wrong

The Earth Is Billions of Years Old...Period! The shear STUPIDITY of anyones claim to the Earth being only 6000 years old makes my stomach sick. The fact that some people who's Faith is so thin that they have to find some IDIOT to make a video using false science and down right laugh out loud Bull....is sad.

If you believe in GOD...good for you. If you read the Bible...I hope it helps you. But when you go and take a portion of written words out of the Bible and find someone to falsely testify to Scientific Proof making this text a reality...then you and who ever joins you in this lie is just PATHETIC.

We have Asian Civilazations that have text that pre-date the 6000 years this moron on the Video proclaims is the Earths Age. Using Radioactive Decay Testing we can date organic material far past this number of years into the past. And by the way...Neutron Decay of an Elements Isotopes is part of the Physical Laws of our Universe so if anyone says it could be off....no it can't. Unless of course you are talking about another Universes Physical laws of which you are not part of.

6000 Years! Such a short time. The sad part is people will do just about anything to try to prove something they cannot. Even Lie. Split Infinity

Figure I would share this video. Informative and funny. Enjoy.



Oh, and this one is just plain ridiculous.

reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot


You sir win the internet xD can't forget this though www.youtube.com...

reply to post by SplitInfinity


You are using a linear measurement of time because that is your comfort zone.

I don't blame you, I thought I was hot sh__ when I learned to add 2+2; it was so simple and I was so young.

Not until much later did I realize the cold reality that learning math involves a lot more than just simple addition.

Try to think outside the box because time has NOT always been linear.
You are ignororing the proportional relationship between time and distance and the exponential factor and effects of The Big Bang.

Time is relative.
In other words, Earth, with repect to the Big Bang, may indeed be 6000 years old,
yet Billions of years old with respect to itself.

Well lets see:

Carbon dating, sediment dating and tree ring dating all tally with known historical dates, which would kind of suggest they are accurate. You can get tree ring data going back 11,000 years in Europe, and the oldest living organism is some 11,000 year old shrub in America. Human dated remains go back to about 160,000 years, and evolution and speciation events have been observed within the time frame of human history. Evolution and an ancient Earth are a fact.

6,000 years. Oy. You get some really outre claims from religious people.