I'm not the confused one.
It's one of the most researched subjects in science today,just like evolution it is a well documented theory.
Au contraire
If it was that 'well documented" it would be 'Scientific law" and not theory.
Do you believe that the Earth's age is only several thousand years?
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
Au contraire
If it was that 'well documented" it would be 'Scientific law" and not theory.
winterwarz
Closed Account
No. It's also flat.
Nope, no such thing as scientific law.Evolution,gravity and climate change are just well documented theory's subject to some revision and refinement and they have been and will continue to be refined.Einstein had new insights on gravity and that has even been refined more by physicists that have followed him for example.
Scientific Law
Definition: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law
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.
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).
Well at least I guess we can put you two down (whoremaker and blue countach) as accepting evolution:dunno: ,thats progress....:hatsoff::rofl:
Citation, citation, citation..... !?!?!?! :nono:
Not to worry you've proven my point anyway.
What you seem to have done here is focused solely on Carbon dating which is the common example given by many. What you seem to be leaving out is the fact that Carbon dating isn’t used to date rocks and earth because Carbon dating is primarily used to date organic (“carbon”
) matter and it does in fact work in many circumstances and not in others usually when the sample is contaminated – this is all information that is well known to a lot of scientists, it’s just played up by many deniers because it’s easy. But - as I say - carbon dating cannot and will not date the Earth and unless you can prove me wrong I don’t think any “real” scientist ever claimed it did.Again I say read up on some of the actual dating methods used to date the Earth. Nothing is ever perfect of course (even some guys Bible calculations) but, Radiometric dating and Paleomagnetic dating are just two examples I can give with new methods being discovered all the time and they all point to similar conclusion.
:hatsoff:
jasonk282
Banned
AnnaMiller
Official Checked Star Member
Yes, my grandparents lived with Giant Insects, then later with the Dinosaurs, on the flat earth that was the center of the universe, which only has a few hundred other stars, which of course are angels in the sky looking down at us, and NOT other galaxies, suns, and solar systems.
The conspiracy theorists who think that the Earth is only few thousand years old pray nightly to their goat god Two-Horns Suckin' the Milk aka Baphomet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet) at their secret meetings. They call themselves the Getacluminati.
Citation, citation, citation..... !?!?!?! :nono:
Not to worry you've proven my point anyway.
What you seem to have done here is focused solely on Carbon dating which is the common example given by many. What you seem to be leaving out is the fact that Carbon dating isn’t used to date rocks and earth because Carbon dating is primarily used to date organic (“carbon”
Again I say read up on some of the actual dating methods used to date the Earth. Nothing is ever perfect of course (even some guys Bible calculations) but, Radiometric dating and Paleomagnetic dating are just two examples I can give with new methods being discovered all the time and they all point to similar conclusion.
:hatsoff:
"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:
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/
I believe that the earth is billions of years old
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Yeah.
They are wrong on both counts. It's Creation in six days with no gap theory or "big bang".
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!
Similar threads
