Do you believe that the Earth's age is only several thousand years?

[Will E Worm]

I don't know about billions of years, maybe millions. But I wasn't there when it started! But the old Christian and Jewish belief of 12,000 years is just silly!

Really? Like you said you weren't there. :tongue:

So, you believe these scientists theories that is faith.

1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[CunningStunts]

If you believe that climate change is as "proven" as evolution and gravity, then I recommend finding the nearest night school and taking some science classes. And maybe a Critical Thinking course, as well.

+1. These two topics are not in the same ballpark when it comes to observed data that is accepted to be valid.

 

[calpoon]

"Radiometric dating is the process by which bones or fossils are "dated," meaning an estimated date is chosen as to when the animal lived and died on the earth.

yeah, it's estimated.. but how do you account for the fact that other specimens in the same geologic layer have the same date? and that those same layers are, as verified and logically assumed, piled on top of each other in descending chronological order?

If the factors that you cited really cause such a discrepancy in dating, then there would not be such matching consistencies between specimens and geologic layers.

Furthermore, taking the speed of light in a vacuum and the Doppler shift, facts that have been verified in lab experiments, the Universe could not be the size that it is if it was less than billions of years old. The only possibility to the contrary would be if it was formed instantaneously with "false" light waves, which is not supported by any scientific investigation.

As for the age of the Earth, things like the matter in the solar system, thermodynamics of nuclear fusion and fission, the ambient and core temperatures of stars and planets and space, and the reaction to gasses under pressure all preclude the age of the Sun and the Earth from having formed less than billions of years ago.

So you can say that atomic dating has it's faults, but to question all those other things is to disregard everything that science has established about how the world works, and so with no other evidence or theories what is left to prove the age of the Earth at all?

 

[redwolf]

Creationism is more political than theological in my opinion. Frankly, I think Genesis makes more sense if you look at those six days as a an allegory for the big bang (let there be light) and evolution (each day bringing new creatures). If you look at it that way, 3,500 years before Darwin, before anyone knew what a gene was or what stars are, someone had revealed it to the ancient Israelites in terms they could understand. That to me makes a far more compelling case for Christianity than trying to make it literal ever can.

My two pence.

 

[BlueBalls]

"Radiometric dating is the process by which bones or fossils are "dated," meaning an estimated date is chosen as to when the animal lived and died on the earth.

While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years). This is not theory; it is based on actual samples."

(citation for Professor BlueBalls)http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_080__Radiometric_Dating__.html

Actually, the whole article is pretty interesting. It shows how scientists are biased to fit their own agenda. My favorite is the part about how an estimated date is chosen (not proven, chosen). Basically what that means is the scientist pulls a number out of his ass, like say.....a billion?

Here's another article (be sure to pay attention to the bold words now).

"Few people realize it but all radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:

1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

Constant Decay Rate:
For purposes of radiometric dating it must be assumed that the rate of decay from mother element to daughter element has remained constant throughout the past. Although there is no way to prove whether or not this has been the case, scientists have attempted to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials and have found that they are almost immune to change. Most creationists have few qualms in accepting this first assumption.

Original Amounts Known:
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already present when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be made. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this problem.

For example, with the uranium/lead method scientists have attempted to estimate what the original ratio (of uranium-238 to lead-206) was when the Earth formed. To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio. They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created. This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium. In fact, about 98% of "common" lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207,208) and only 2% non-radiogenic. 1,2,3,4,5,6

A Closed System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system. This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material. And since the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable."

Hmmm, I see question, assume, subjective, and guess quite a few times in there. Sounds like a reliable measurement system to me.

Oh, almost forgot....
(2nd citation for Professor BlueBalls) http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric Dating, and The Age of the Earth.htm

:wave:

Just like Will E Worm has done many times previously, you have proven my point for me.

Thanks :hatsoff:

 

[Will E Worm]

Just like Will E Worm has done many times previously, you have proven my point for me.

Thanks :hatsoff:

What? He tried to tell you the truth and you refused to accept it?

:tongue:

 

[Shadowfax 10]

I believe Earth millions years olds since we found that dinosaurs exists.

 

[mrtrebus]

Why are we still debating this? Don't you remember when we got to the centre of the earth & found the date of manufacture, approx 4.5 billion years ago. Sadly the expiry date couldn't be read as it was all smudged. There was also some graffiti, "Jehovah/Allah WASN'T here!"

 

[BlueBalls]

What? He tried to tell you the truth and you refused to accept it?

:tongue:

So I’m supposed to take the word of a website (with no named author) that advocates a worldwide flood and young Earth creationism with a blatant religious bias as "truths" when there is no scientific data whatsoever anywhere in the academic field that proves this to be so? No I'm sorry but that just isn't going to cut it with me.

Now of course I expect you to believe this type of scientific ignorance Will, your track record on the subject proves this so. But anyone with any scientific knowledge even at the most base level would know that this is nothing more than a creationist attempting to twist the facts of the matter in order for it to match his or her world view.

You can reply back with as many "tongue" smiley’s as you want, the fact still remains that every time you attempt to get involved in scientific issues your complete lack of knowledge shines through so there really is no real point in taking this charade any further.

Good day to you. :hatsoff:

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

http://creationmuseum.org/

All the facts are here! 8)

 

[sporty_carr]

You realize that the Web Site you use for your source also proves that Noah's Flood was a real event. They assume the Bible is a science and history book. More religion trumps science bull shit.


http://www.earthage.org/

Uuuuummmm, yeah, it is a history book. What would you call a book that was written about events that took place thousands of years ago? Scary Stories To Tell in the Dark? :dunno:

So you can say that atomic dating has it's faults, but to question all those other things is to disregard everything that science has established about how the world works, and so with no other evidence or theories what is left to prove the age of the Earth at all?

Bingo! We can't prove the age of the Earth, it's impossible. There are some things man will never know the anwer to, but some people just can't accept that. We're the brilliant human, we must know the answer to everything! So we just guess that the world is 4.5 billion years old and put it in our school books for students to read as if it were fact.

Just like Will E Worm has done many times previously, you have proven my point for me.

Thanks :hatsoff:

Awwwww, that's it? I'm disappointed
I honestly thought you were going to come back with proof as to why these measurement systems work, so I would just have to disprove them again.
Anyway, you say potato, I say.......potato? :dunno:

What? He tried to tell you the truth and you refused to accept it?

:tongue:

It's ok, Will E. He's just pretending to be a scientist....shhhhhh. You know, when they throw out the data that they don't like and keep the stuff that helps prove their theories. It kind of reminds me of when you tell a little kid they're wrong and they just put their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALALALA!!!!!

Why are we still debating this? Don't you remember when we got to the centre of the earth & found the date of manufacture, approx 4.5 billion years ago. Sadly the expiry date couldn't be read as it was all smudged. There was also some graffiti, "Jehovah/Allah WASN'T here!"

Damn smudges! I'm telling you that B in billion is really a M.

 

[mrtrebus]

The truth explained!

 

[calpoon]

Uuuuummmm, yeah, it is a history book. What would you call a book that was written about events that took place thousands of years ago? Scary Stories To Tell in the Dark? :dunno:

That title is already copy-righted. Besides, it only deals with contemporary mythology, not ancient mythology. But I like it better as a source of scripture because it lets you make up your own mind about things.

This couple buys a Mexican hairless dog and one day it gets sick and they take it to the vet. The vet says, "this isn't a dog, it's a sewer rat."

The moral of the story? You decide!

 

[mrtrebus]

Uuuuummmm, yeah, it is a history book. What would you call a book that was written about events that took place thousands of years ago? Scary Stories To Tell in the Dark? :dunno:
.

In a way yes. It's another in a long line of mythological texts. That is all.

 

[Mauser98k]

hell no.

 

[lechepicha]

The Age of the Earth

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

interesting reading! :thumbsub:

 

[sporty_carr]

That title is already copy-righted. Besides, it only deals with contemporary mythology, not ancient mythology. But I like it better as a source of scripture because it lets you make up your own mind about things.

This couple buys a Mexican hairless dog and one day it gets sick and they take it to the vet. The vet says, "this isn't a dog, it's a sewer rat."

The moral of the story? You decide!

Haha, yeah, it was my favorite book in elementary school.

 

[STDiva]

I head some good jokes today. They went like this...

Ok, I read up on it -

"While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.


Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.


The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic."

So in short, we really have no clue how old the world really is. We know for a fact that its at least 6,000 years old, though I am pretty sure it is much older. I would be surprised if it was a million years old, much less the billions scientists proclaim it to be. I laugh every time I hear them say billions of years as if it were fact. It kind of reminds me of how they thought the earth was flat (the Bible clearly stated it was round long before we knew).

"Radiometric dating is the process by which bones or fossils are "dated," meaning an estimated date is chosen as to when the animal lived and died on the earth.

While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years). This is not theory; it is based on actual samples."

(citation for Professor BlueBalls)http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_080__Radiometric_Dating__.html

Actually, the whole article is pretty interesting. It shows how scientists are biased to fit their own agenda. My favorite is the part about how an estimated date is chosen (not proven, chosen). Basically what that means is the scientist pulls a number out of his ass, like say.....a billion?

Here's another article (be sure to pay attention to the bold words now).

"Few people realize it but all radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:

1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

Constant Decay Rate:
For purposes of radiometric dating it must be assumed that the rate of decay from mother element to daughter element has remained constant throughout the past. Although there is no way to prove whether or not this has been the case, scientists have attempted to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials and have found that they are almost immune to change. Most creationists have few qualms in accepting this first assumption.

Original Amounts Known:
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already present when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be made. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this problem.

For example, with the uranium/lead method scientists have attempted to estimate what the original ratio (of uranium-238 to lead-206) was when the Earth formed. To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio. They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created. This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium. In fact, about 98% of "common" lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207,208) and only 2% non-radiogenic. 1,2,3,4,5,6

A Closed System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system. This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material. And since the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable."

Hmmm, I see question, assume, subjective, and guess quite a few times in there. Sounds like a reliable measurement system to me.

Oh, almost forgot....
(2nd citation for Professor BlueBalls) http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric Dating, and The Age of the Earth.htm

Yeah.

They are wrong on both counts. It's Creation in six days with no gap theory or "big bang".

Really? Like you said you weren't there.

So, you believe these scientists theories that is faith.

1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

What? He tried to tell you the truth and you refused to accept it?

:tongue:

Uuuuummmm, yeah, it is a history book. What would you call a book that was written about events that took place thousands of years ago? Scary Stories To Tell in the Dark? :dunno:



Bingo! We can't prove the age of the Earth, it's impossible. There are some things man will never know the anwer to, but some people just can't accept that. We're the brilliant human, we must know the answer to everything! So we just guess that the world is 4.5 billion years old and put it in our school books for students to read as if it were fact.





Awwwww, that's it? I'm disappointed
I honestly thought you were going to come back with proof as to why these measurement systems work, so I would just have to disprove them again.
Anyway, you say potato, I say.......potato? :dunno:



It's ok, Will E. He's just pretending to be a scientist....shhhhhh. You know, when they throw out the data that they don't like and keep the stuff that helps prove their theories. It kind of reminds me of when you tell a little kid they're wrong and they just put their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALALALA!!!!!




Damn smudges! I'm telling you that B in billion is really a M.

:1orglaugh

I think it is funny how people will try and find faults in all the dating techniques to disprove a point, but will not provide any scientific proof that lend support to the idea that the Earth is less than a million years old.

So Will, instead of taking the lazy way out and posting your usual "Creation in 6 days" and your ":hatsoff::tongue:", show us some proof that supports what you believe.

I'm pretty sure the Earth is around 4.55 billion years old.

Now instead of telling us why that age is wrong, tell us why you're right.

I'll be waiting. Probably for a while. :hatsoff::tongue:

 

[davidx]

I believe global warming is false its just been created to control the world into a 'one world goverment' system, look into that treaty that barrack obama is signing for more information on this, soon we will all have to pay a 'carbon foot print tax' this is the begining of the end,

 

[Will E Worm]

I head some good jokes today. They went like this...

I wasn't joking. :tongue: