Age of the Earth
70 Comments - 9327 Views
Submitted By doctorofscience on 09/04/26
FreeHovind, doctorofscience, Creation and Evolution
The creationists here (especially bigdog) frequently repeat two related claims: that there is a significant amount of evidence of a young Earth, and that the evidence for an old Earth has been somehow discredited due to (supposed) unreliability of the dating methods used.
Despite numerous requests, the people making those claims have yet to back them up in any substantial way - and we would probably all grow old and grey before that happens. So I decided to do a little bit of reading on the methods used to determine the age of the Earth & found some interesting explanations.
This Wikipedia article has some details of the history of scientific inquiry into the Earth's age (it's interesting to note that even the earliest & lowest scientific estimates were on the order of tens of thousands of years). This particular section also has some interesting info on modern radiometric dating, the reasons why meteorites are used for determining the Earth's age, etc.
Then on talkorigins.org there is a much more thorough article, specifically addressing the some of the claims made by young Earth creationists. There is also a section specifically addressing creationists criticisms of dating methods - I found these portions especially interesting:
1. Reference to a
case where the given method did not work
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:
- First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply
that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are
"undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects
cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has
failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for
discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Here's a list on this web-site that may help you understand why radio-metric dating is based on hopeful junk science. rocks of HISTORICAL known ages are dated innacurately more than accurately. They also decide what date they want before they begin with which dating method they choose.
http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Here's a list on this web-site that may help you understand why radio-metric dating is based on hopeful junk science.
You could have saved yourself some effort by just typing "I know you are, but what am I?"
rocks of HISTORICAL known ages are dated innacurately more than accurately.
You're just demonstrating the faulty tactic already mentioned in the quote from TalkOrigins:
"Reference to a
case where the given method did not work
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored."
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Now your getting it. If we can't trust it for dates of a known age then why should we trust it for dates of an unkown age? Talk about faith!
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
" If we can't trust it for dates of a known age then why should we trust it for dates of an unkown age?"
k bidgod, how many times must we keep driving this point into your brain before you actually get it.
ANOMOLIES DO NOT INVALIDATE THE METHOD!.
ESPECIALLY NOT IF WE KNOW WHATS CAUSING THEM.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
So, say you date some rocks, of no known historical date, and it comes out to millions of years, how do you know the date is accurate? Please come up with something better than the geologic column for your answer.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"
So, say you date some rocks, of no known historical date, and it comes out to millions of years, how do you know the date is accurate?"
So, say you date some rocks, of no known historical date, and it comes out to millions of years, how do you know the date is accurate?"
i will use as much dating methods as possible and take 100 perfect samples each.
i will look at the average age of the samples (nullifieing anomolies) of all the datign methods.
if 4 out of 5 match up and 1 doesn't i might have some sort of interference on the minaral used for that 1 datign method.
if none of the 5 match, well then i can;t give you an age.
however if all 5 match, i can give you really educated estimate as to how old the rocks are.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
So, say you date some rocks, of no known historical date, and it comes
out to millions of years, how do you know the date is accurate?
As usual, you're grossly mischaracterizing the practice of science - calling it an "over-simplification" would be an understatement.
A more accurate question/description would be:
"Say you date some rocks, of no known historical date, and 80-90 percent of those dates come out to millions of years. Then, make testable predictions about the dating of rocks in strata above /below the original rocks - and when you date date those rocks, the results are consistent with your predictions."
Please
come up with something better than the geologic column for your answer.
Take your own advice, petit chien. Please come up with something better than a 2-3 thousand year-old (heavily-plaigarized) fairy tale.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
There are still too many problems to trust these methods. When we know that radio-metric dating dates rocks of a known age incorrectly %95 of the time, it's foolish to trust the dates of unkown aged rocks.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"%95 of the time,"
SOURCES BIGDOG!!!!!
"There are still too many problems to trust these methods."
no there are not. it works perfectly fine as long as certain circumstances are met.
"it's foolish to trust the dates of unkown aged rocks."
even when we have 495 out of a 500 dating tests that show the same age period?
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
They first decide how old it is before they use the dating method that fits their particular pre-conception. They decide what age they want first.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"
They first decide how old it is before they use the dating method that fits their particular pre-conception. They decide what age they want first."
They first decide how old it is before they use the dating method that fits their particular pre-conception. They decide what age they want first."
srly....can you be any more stupid...
i just fucking explained to you how scientists do NOT do that.
ironically creationist DO do that. see you start with the conclusion "the earth is less then 6000 years old" and then find the "evidence" for it.
which is an approach that would get any scientist fired.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
This site may help explain the many stupid assumptions in trusting radio-metric-dating. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Reliability%20of%20creationist%20sources
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
....this is where your link brought me..
"
The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe. If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well. All in all, I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach. But I am thankful for the many voices being raised against this triumvirate of confusion, and believe that in the minds of many it is losing credibility, despite the resistance of establishment science. Most people only have time to become familiar with one of these three aspects, and so their doubts are calmed by belief in the evidence from the other two. But all three of them are in confusion.
In general, it's good to read both sides of the story. So I continue to recommend the creation web sites, including the following:"
so esentially it's a creationis telling you to use creationist sources ...REAL CONVINCING
why? because :
"I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach."
the irony beign of course that this comes forma camp of people who are quite used to bendign the laws of physics.
separation of the red sea any1?
or vapor canopy?
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Here is the link that I found about the radio-metric dating and lava flows. There's a lot of good info here with references.
Quote: There are many examples where the dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar “dating” of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the “dates” range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14]
That is a huge gap. Hundreds of thousands to billions of years old.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
GOD BIGDOG!! FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME
you DON;T take a anomily, which we understand, and then say it is the norm and then regard the ENTIRE METHOD as useless.
THAT IS INTELECTUALLY SHALLOW!
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
It's also interesting (though not surprising) that bigdog has failed to substantiate his claim that "radio-metric dating dates rocks of a known age incorrectly %95 of the time".
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I really want to know when these dating methods science uses all of a sudden were discredited as inacurate, don't you think if tha had happened, it would be all over the news or something? That would be big news, and yet, none of us have heard about it. I do believe in an Earth that is millions of years old, but I believe a higher power made Earth and the universe billions of years ago. I don't exactly understand the science, nor do I understand the young earth theory, but I love my simplified version, as it is a compromise, bigdog, why can't you just compromise and face the facts, facing facts doesn't mean you need to give up your faith in God? 325, perhaps you are the one that needs to show him soureces (not sure if you have done this or not) that shows him the realiabillity of the dating methods, if you have already done this, I apologize ahead of time. In other words, both sides words mean nothing if they are no sources to back them up, if the evolutionists have already posted sources, i apologize, but the creationist (and my fellow christians) have yet to show any source saying dating methods have been debunked.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I really want to know when these dating methods science uses all of a
sudden were discredited as inacurate, don't you think if tha had
happened, it would be all over the news or something?
Exactly. If there truly were evidence that conclusively falsified radiometric dating, that's the sort of thing that gets someone a Nobel prize - or at least published in scientific journals.
The reality is that scientists subject their own claims to much, much greater scrutiny (and much more informed scrutiny) than "creation scientists." Which is why it's so amusing when people like bigdog steadfastly claim that it's all based on faith.
The best (and only) explanation I've read is little more than a conspiracy theory: that there is evidence discrediting radiometric dating, but it's suppressed because scientists are all atheists/"anti-God"/whatever. And yet, the same folks who make that claim will then turn around and brag about how many scientists are Christians (usually while committing the appeal-to-authority fallacy).
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"325, perhaps you are the one that needs to show him soureces (not sure
if you have done this or not) that shows him the realiabillity of the
dating methods"
the moment i do that thedude. bigdog or any other creationist IMMIDEATELY replies with: "THOSE ARE BIASED EVOLUTIONISTS SOURCES!", while not even looking to the faults, contradictions or lies in their own sources.
it's just never gonna work...
i thought you realizd that by now?
-i link him wiki (*which is ALWAYS well sourced). he calls is liberal bias.
-i link him talk origins, he calls it evolutionist bias, while not even looking at the article.
-i show his where the math is wrong in one of his sources. he calls it a lie and refused to correct me.
-i show him inconsitancies in his articles (like i've dont several times, to the point that i conpletely annihalate the arguments in the sources paragrahp by paragrahp, look at fish and the flood. or other 25+ page threads concernign science) and he ignores them and keeps repeatign the same faulty sources.
but the point of us asking him to show sources is simply this.
he shows us some creationist site where they take one anomoly and then call the entire method bunk. (not even lisiting the actual paper they got the results from)
as any scientist will tell you. the moment you say a scientificly accepted method is completely bunk, and then you give this kind of source. NO SCIENTICFIC LITARATE will take you seriously. either bigdog link us that papers with he faulty test results and which has excluded ALL the anomoly factors. OR don't make such a claim.
this is regretably somethign that bigdog's bible glasses are gonna block out.
oh and i've tried to engange in a spoken dialogue with bigdog to better educate him, but he responded by giving me a (very likely this is the case) spoof telephone number and he urged me to call it.
so i don't see myself explaining this all over the phone any time soon...
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I apologize for that 325
I am fairly new to this forum, and am not very aware of it's past
I have seen you try to get them links, sorry about that
I'm just trying to get people to a compromising point, mainly creationist
Again, my apologies
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
^^ no problem.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Dude. Like I said before I used to believe in thiestic evolution and the Bible, but now I looked hard into both sides by researching science from "icr.org" and Kent Hovinds debate seminars. The problem is that if the athiest scientists admit that thier is no evidence for an old earth it destroys their faith so they won't let go of this fallicious dating game. History only goes back 6 thousand years. C-14 dating actually shows a young earth but still has dating problems. Here are some of the excuses that they use when they get inaccurate dates.
Quote: Another issue is that sometimes the geologic periods of rocks are revised to agree with the ages computed. This also makes data about percentages of anomalies less meaningful.
It sometimes seems that reasons can always be found for bad dates, especially on the geologic column. If a rock gives a too old date, one says there is excess argon. If it gives a too young date, one says that it was heated recently, or cannot hold its argon. How do we know that maybe all the rocks have excess argon? It looks like geologists are taking the "majority view" of K-Ar dating, but there is no necessary reason why the majority of rocks should give the right date.
The following quote is from the article by Robert H. Brown, cited earlier:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is a Radioisotope Age?
The relationship of a radioisotope age with real-time must be based on an interpretation. A discussion of rubidium-strontium ages in the Isotope Geoscience Section of the journal, Chemical Geology, specifically states that a radioisotope age determination "does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system. Any interpretation will reflect the interpreters presuppositions (bias).
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Excuses%20for%20anomalies
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Like I said before I used to believe in thiestic evolution and the
Bible, but now I looked hard into both sides by researching science
from "icr.org" and Kent Hovinds debate seminars.
And when you mentioned that before, I had asked if your "research" had included any sources other than blatant Christian apologetics. Thank you for (finally) confirming that the answer is/was "no."
The problem is that if the athiest scientists admit that thier is no
evidence for an old earth it destroys their faith so they won't let go
of this fallicious dating game.
Atheist scientists like Robert Bakker, Ken Miller, and Fred Hoyle? (In case my point is too subtle for you, those are all scientists who are/were also Christians, yet accept that the Earth is billions of years old).
History only goes back 6 thousand years.
You've used that argument already - and the problems with that argument were already pointed out. That's not evidence of a young earth - it's evidence that humans have only used written communication for about 4-6 thousand words (which, "coincidentally," is the consensus among linguists/anthropologists).
C-14 dating actually shows a young earth but still has dating problems.
Uh, no. Carbon dating has a limit of 60,000 years - that's SIXTY thousand, not SIX thousand.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Oh, and by the way - you still have not substantiated your claim that "radio-metric dating dates rocks of a known age incorrectly %95 of the time".
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
“The problem is that if the atheist scientists admit that thier is no evidence for an old earth it destroys their faith...”
...And that’s where you’re wrong. Science isn’t about faith, and even if it were there would be nothing to destroy. Unlike theists, we don’t have a personal relationship with our theories. We don’t believe that evolution loves us unconditionally, or that the big bang theory will forgive our sins. For you, giving up the idea of a young earth would entail more than a new scientific opinion. You would be giving up an entire way of life, and would lose the security of having someone watching over you and listening to your prayers. It would be like ending a friendship, which is why it’s so difficult for you to accept evidence and acknowledge how old the earth really is.
...And that’s where you’re wrong. Science isn’t about faith, and even if it were there would be nothing to destroy. Unlike theists, we don’t have a personal relationship with our theories. We don’t believe that evolution loves us unconditionally, or that the big bang theory will forgive our sins. For you, giving up the idea of a young earth would entail more than a new scientific opinion. You would be giving up an entire way of life, and would lose the security of having someone watching over you and listening to your prayers. It would be like ending a friendship, which is why it’s so difficult for you to accept evidence and acknowledge how old the earth really is.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
" hard into both sides by researching science from "icr.org" and Kent Hovinds debate seminars."
..first of all you're admittign to only researching one side of the argument here. and second of all, you DO realize that IRC doesn't do any peer reviewed research and hovind's arguments have been torn apart by people like us so many times there's rly nothing left of them any more...
"The problem is that if the athiest scientists admit that thier is no
evidence for an old earth it destroys their faith so they won't let go
of this fallicious dating game."
you are describing a position that cannot be reached by the scientific method.
aka, there's plenty of evidence for a very old earth even OUTSIDE of radiometric dating. to say that science picked a conclusion and then made up radiometric dating to back it up, is accusing science of not being science...which is just....well stupid..and something i'd expect from a creationist.
btw it is YOU who took a conclusion and spend all your time to finding evidence to support it while disregarding conflicting evidence....the irony just oozes from this...
"History only goes back 6 thousand years."
agricultural revolution...we explained this to you.
bu nevertheless we still have plenty of achrelogical settlement evidence that goes back further then 6000 years. ask your nearest archeologist.
" C-14 dating actually shows a young earth but still has dating problems"
link article.
"How do we know that maybe all the rocks have excess argon"
well lets sample rocks and run tests! then we publish the results.
"It sometimes seems that reasons can always be found for bad dates,"
so anomolies destroy the method?
"If a rock gives a too old date, one says there is excess argon. If it
gives a too young date, one says that it was heated recently, or cannot
hold its argon."
1 rock out of......how many? again, anomolies do not invalidate the method.
"A discussion of rubidium-strontium ages in the Isotope Geoscience
Section of the journal, Chemical Geology, specifically states that a
radioisotope age determination "does not certainly define a valid age
information for a geological system."
so they're saying: "lets not just use 1 method and then make a conclusion. lets use a bunch more methods!"
what is so wrong about that?
btw that is the same site you gave us earlier. the one where they said "USE CREATION SOURCES" in the conclusion.
lets have a look at that article.
"If a date does not agree with the expected age of its geologic period,
and no plausible explanation can be found, then the date is called
anomalous.
so because we don't know the reason that 1 rock out of 20 is far of and we name it "an anomoly" we are being bad?
" " But if we really understand what is going on, then we
should be able to detect discrepant dates as they are being measured,
and not just due to their divergence from other dates."
then we'd understand the reason and not call it a "we don't know why, so anomoly".....
"Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But
there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in
radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies
are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron
yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date
of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been
recorded."
so you list a bunch of anomilies...
"It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the
date to be discarded anyway."
and here he implies connection, not specified if both the isotopes used where contaminated. to vague of a remark.
"
Samples with flat plateaus (which should
mean no added argon) can give wrong dates.Samples giving no evidence
of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence
of being disturbed can give correct dates."
again.. he implies connection where there does not need to be one.
btw, disturbed in what way? in a way that it contaminates the dating isotopes? again very vague.
"The number of dates that
disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know
what the exact percentage is."
so first you statr to criticize the amount of anomalies, and then you admit you don't know the exact amount (not even giving an vague estimate)... REAL convincing..
NEXT PARAGRAPH
"
Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate.
It's interesting to note that in a few cases, old radiometric dates are above young ones.
The fact that different methods often give different dates is noted by geologists. Here are some quotes from http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html:
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists... [47]
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years. [48]""
WOW somehow seeing the word "evolutionists" makes me a bit suspicious to an ultirior motive...not to mention that this is a VERY possible quote mine.
"Another source said that about 5 or 6 of the historic lava flows give ages in the hundreds of thousands of years. Geologists explain the Kaupelehu date by the lava being cooled rapidly in deep ocean water and not being able to get rid of its enclosed argon."
well there you have it... a reason why the certain volacanic rock shouldn't be dated with this method...
"
Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe's paper, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised," Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported:
"Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... " (Waterhouse).
"In general, dates in the `correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." (Mauger)
" ... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous." (Curtis et al)
" ... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age." (Armstrong and Besancon).
"In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods." (Brown and Miller)"
aka...biased quotemining..
"In addition, Woodmorappe gives over 300 sets of dates "that are in gross conflict with one another and with expected values for their indicated paleontological positions." This table is limited to dates that approach 20% discrepancy, too old or too young. This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable. He states that the number of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone's guess. He also combines evidence from the literature to conclude that "somewhat less than half of all dates agree with 10% of accepted values for their respective biostratigaphic positions." I believe this estimate even includes igneous bodies with very wide biostrategraphic limits, and does not include unpublished anomalies."
so he cites a bunch of dates out of...(how many we have no idea) then makes a claim that there are way more dates, which he appears to backup...though i'lll need to see the source for that. and then we realize it's form the same creationist... funny..
"There have been criticisms of John Woodmorappe's study, but no one has given any figures from the literature for the true percentage of anomalies, with a definition of an anomaly, or the degree of correlation between methods. Steven Schimmrich's review of this study often concerns itself with John W's presentation of geologists explanation for anomalies, and not with the percentage of anomalies; the later is my main concern."
no one has given any figueres yet? mm perhaps because they saw the word creationist and thought is wast worth their time...
but anyway, Schimmerich doesn't give an percentages either BUT he DOES attack the way W is portraying anamolies as the overwhelming majority...something which in itself would allow any date to be made ANYWAY, because you wouldn't have a large portion of close dates to get an intelectually accurate date.
"Here are a couple of more quotes about anomalies:"
more creationist statements. outlining situation where there is (an obvious) contamination possibility.
"Still another evidence for problems with radiometric dating was given in a recent talk I attended by a man who had been an evolutionist and taken a course in radiometric dating. The teacher gave 14 assumptions of radiometric dating and said something like "If creationists got a hold of these, they could cut radiometric dating to pieces.""
ehm.. riddled with personal opinion? and WHAT assumption is might ask?
"On another point, if we can detect minerals that were not molten with the lava, as has been claimed, then this is one more reason why there should be no anomalies, and radiometric dating should be a completely solved problem. But that does not appear to be the case, at least (especially) on the geologic column."
WHAT??!?! so 1 minaral not melting will make ALL the dating methods suddenly flawless?? damm this is just....mindboggeling....
"I'm not claiming that anomalous results are being hidden, just that the agreement of a mass of results, none of which has much claim to reliability, does not necessarily mean much."
so instead of attacking the scientist. you attack the validity of the majority. a valididity that would, when it did not exist, not allow for anomolies to be made. since i have nothing to compare my far of date to.
"Picking out a few cases where radiometric dates appear to be well-behaved reminds me of evolutionary biologists focusing on a few cases where there may be transitional sequences. It does not answer the overall question. And as I said above, I'm also interested to know how much of the fossil-bearing geologic column can be dated by isochrons, and how the dates so obtained compare to others."
well lets look at it the other way round...hypocrit..
also i fear that this person has a very screwy understandign of what atransitional sequence is. given the fact that most of his sources are creationists sources...sources that lack in a lot if scientific credibility..
"Concerning K-Ar anomalies, here is a quote from Woodmorappe's paper cited above, p. 122:"
you know the drill...
overall it stands out that who ever wrote the article has take much care NOT to include the other side in the story, like the scientific journals. he leaves that for last. and it is a VERY old reference...1964...
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
damm, a pity i spend so much time running through your sources and disecting them...especially since all the effort is wasted on you bigdog....
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I told you guys, I've listened to the best arguments on both sides. Evolution believing scientists admit that there are problems with excess argon.
To get ages from these measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made like:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
These are based on assumptions. Another word is faith.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"I told you guys, I've listened to the best arguments on both sides.
Evolution believing scientists admit that there are problems with
excess argon.
To get ages from these measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made like:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
These are based on assumptions. Another word is faith."
To get ages from these measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made like:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
These are based on assumptions. Another word is faith."
and that magically makes the earth 6000 years old?
1) that's the way nature is, under certain conditions we know the ratio's. same way we can tell how much cis-dichloorideethane there is in comparison to trans-dichlorideethane. rly, to say we just "gues" that's like that is rly missing the point of the concepts behind a method.
2) ehm....again that's the way nature is...unless you show me a chemical which hans't kept a constant decay rate.
3) that is probably one of the most basic demands any sample must meet.
how do we know somethings off? difference in relation to the rest, signs of exposure (like by looking at the other chemicals in the sample), the very nature of the rock you are testing (like silicates forming complex poreus structures under certain conditions).
" unprovable assumptions have to be made like:"
so esentially you are disregarding ALL the evidence that all the basic forces of the universe are constant. rly, then what is the point in science......this makes all control tests IMPOSIBLE, as the forces are always changing.
you are in fact attcking one of the very basic concepts of reality....and for what? so you can use a false dichotomy to "prove" that the earth is 6000 years old, based on a chronology drawn up by some guy just at the dawn of the renaissance? and then you cherry pick your supporting archeological evidence, some of which is dated using the very techniques you claim do not work....
and to explain the reason why they do not work, you have to, ultimately, pull in the explination "well god made all the forces in the universe, and then he changed them to fool us, so when we look at something that we calculated to be 20 000 years old, it is in fact 5300 years old. just to test our faith"
the irony of course is that you presume the existance of an antropomorphic god, that actually does all of thisjust to test our faith in a book that was written by 40 different men, who all claimed his divine inspiration. a book that contains contradictions, no comprehensive or analytical description of the natural world, is filled with supernatural phenomena, and is so open to enterpetation because of translations, it's just rediculus.
all of that you presume....just to prove us wrong....
" I've listened to the best arguments on both sides."
i'll say it again, NO YOU HAVE NOT!
why can i say this in such confidence?
you've repeatedly shown to have no idea of the concepts you are argueing against.
your arguement are rife with appeals, strawman arguments and other fallaccies.
you refuse to give any sort of comprehensive source for your facts, instead relying on sources that can pulled apart within the first read through, and are only out there for one reason. apologetics. a practice which in itself is the exept opposite of science, something you claim to love. somethign that doesn't start with a conclusion (creation is true) and then start looking for the evidence, cherry picking while doing so.
and then on top of ALL that. you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge to even read or watch our counter arguments. you just ignore them and go on repeatign yourself, acting like we never extensively called yourself on you BS. you will not engange in dialoge, you have repeatedly shown you are incapable of enterign a discussion, let alone a scientific one and you have very little respect for honest debate.
you sir, are a disgrace to rational humanity.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
You're first sentence rebuttal starts off with faith and you still don't even realize it. You said, "that's the way nature is, under certain conditions we KNOW the ratio's." You don't know anything. You are just told what they know. Listen to Hovind debate this class of anthropology majors. They all admit that carbon dating doesn't prove jack. Listen to them in their own words. One of the students is an evolutional believeing priest.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hovind+debate&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=Hovind#q=hovind+debate%2C+anthropology&hl=en&emb=0
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"You're first sentence rebuttal starts off with faith and you still
don't even realize it. You said, "that's the way nature is, under
certain conditions we KNOW the ratio's." You don't know anything. You
are just told what they know."
AAARRRRGHGHGHH!!!!!!
we...can....MEASURE THAT YOU IDIOT!
quit trying to seek an intelectual high ground when you cannot find it.
"Listen to Hovind debate this class of anthropology majors. They all admit that carbon dating doesn't prove jack."
what the hell do antopologists have to do with the validity of carbon dating....THEY aren't the one doing the actual dating...
but ok, im gonna watch that 3 hour debate en scrutinize hovinds arguments. just to show you i'm serious.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
2:30
HOVIND DOESN'T HAVE A SCIENCE BACKGROUND!
he has a degree in christian education. NOT science, even though he might have thaught "science" it becomes clear from all the strawmanning he doesn't know squat about science.
3:01
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
this world is to complex and therefore it's created....no...thats not the way you base an argument.
3:57
hovind seems to fail to mention the fact that evolution was censored out of textbooks for a LOOOONG time. so his position is riddled with irony.
4:01
of course only scientific subject are mentioned in science text books....
creation is not science...quit trying to trick the kids hovind...
4:15
scientifically, there is no other side....
4:22
bible glasses?
5:42
/facepalm
anyone educated in biology, or having commen sense would know the calf was beign born. hovind is just insulting scientific literate people here.
6:30
here we go grand canyon.
that has been debunked so many times it' not even worthwhile.
shape of the canyon proves it wasn't formed by a flood.
7:29
strawman, equating all sedimentary rock to mud is stupid.
not to mention he presumes his hydrolic sorting claim is correct. which is not, his own experiment speaks against it.
7:39
soo
conclusion->evidence
or
evidence-> conclusion..
hovind picks the former.
8:53,
ancestor whorship. that explains the long lifetimes mentioned.
10:13
presuming lots of kids, none of which died...
RIIIIIGHT i think hovind skipped the infant mortality statistics.
10:46
bible? nope classical authors hovind...classical heathen authors.
where do you think we got alchemy (pre chemestry) and astronomy from?
ARISTOTLE
and a myriad of other greek and roman intelectuals.
10:58
you hear him hesitate when he mentioning revival, and then he refuses to say the truth.
namely it was the revivial of classical thought. a thought that promoted learning, not dogmatic scripture....the irony.
11:02
hovind seems the think that the bible, and not classicaly inspired doctors, was responsible for the starting of the disecting of human corpses, somethign that led to a huge improvement in healthcare.
11:38
we are NOT bacteria...
we are NOT bacteria...
hovind glosses over a lot of ground here...like the advancements in agriculture.
11:58
conclusion-> evidence...
afraid we are gonna see a lot more of that...
12:15
agricultural revolution.
12:30
god are you serious???
BASIC ECOLOGY HOVIND
FOODSUPPLY and MORTALITY RATES.
12:45
he ADMITS conclusion->evidence...
12:55 actually, hovind is puttign words into the mouths of "evolutionists" here since we know about somethign called a bottleneck. something which we can find in our genome.
13:00
yes..one can be discarded... on the basis of lacking argumetents...like comparign humans population gorwth to bacteria...or glossign over infant mortality rates..or going conclusion->evidence.....
13:11
yes they are...seeing as we do not observe hydrolic sorting the the strata layers there....
13:18
XD i can't believe he brought this up..
this is so bashing science i'm not gonan adress it.
13:47
AWH SHIIT!! RUN EVE!!
ITS A T-REX!!!
no but srly, THERE IS NO REAL EVIDENCE FOR THAT.
and claiming mythological animals where dinosaurs is just silly. most don't even fit the discription of cinosaurs.
13:56
but they don't die of old age??/ riiight mr hovind.
14:51
glossing over the fact that taxanomic evidence makes a lot of dinosaurs, not really lizards we know today...
14:54
water canopy.
debunked so many times.
now this took me 45 mins
so the entire seminar is gonna take me 3x as long to debunk
im gonna take a break.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
thebiblewascompiledin325AD, you sir are my hero. I watched some of hovinds seminars and your comments on what he said is exactly what i thought. He missed a lot of fundamental things about science. Also when i studied chemistry i learned that the standard anomoly (don't know if that is the right word, hope you understand me) can not be over 2% for the method to be approved. So if the results are to wide spread the method of getting the data is considered not valid or a bad one, but since all the methods of testing that has been talked about here is approved to a large extent, that means a lof of different scientist have tested it and got low standard anomoly. Its also a good way to know if the data is reliable. They got the data because they did and not bevause they wanted to disprove the young earth idea. Although it does discard it as nonsense.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
You still have not substantiated your claim that
"radio-metric dating dates rocks of a known age incorrectly %95 of the
time".
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
To get ages from these measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made like:
It's looking like you picked two of those out of the debunked creationist claims section of the TalkOrigins article I linked to.
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
"Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes
relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any
conditions. Emery
(1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and
theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the
largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not
involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and
minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the
change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the
young-Earthers' timescale."
[...]
"In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood)."
"Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty
of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay"
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
"Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric
dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of
matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain
particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus
is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to
larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature."
"[...]pleas to contamination do not
address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in
agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were
producing completely 'haywire' results essentially at random, such
a pattern of concordant results would not be expected."
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"Like I said before I used to believe in thiestic evolution and the
Bible, but now I looked hard into both sides by researching science
from "icr.org" and Kent Hovinds debate seminars."
Exactly...and have you looked into ANYTHING else...your two "sources" are compelete and utter crap. There is not a shred of accurate information from either source. Why in the name of my sacrid bean buritto would you choose THESE as your only two sources to research?
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Did you guys see the video where Hovind debates a whole class of anthropology majors? They admit that it doesn't prove anything. Listen to them in their own words.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hovind+debate&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=Hovind#q=hovind+debate%2C+anthropology&hl=en&emb=0
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
How about you try to backup the claims you made earlier before you move on to new ones?
Once again: you still have not substantiated your claim that
"radio-metric dating dates rocks of a known age incorrectly %95 of the
time".
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"Did you guys see the video where Hovind debates a whole class of
anthropology majors? They admit that it doesn't prove anything. Listen
to them in their own words.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hovind+debate&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=Hovind#q=hovind+debate%2C+anthropology&hl=en&emb=0"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hovind+debate&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=Hovind#q=hovind+debate%2C+anthropology&hl=en&emb=0"
can you pleasegive the time in the vid at that part, i watched the first 15 min of the video and hovind stupidity made my head hurt.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Thats 2 hours long which bit do they admit it doesn't prove anything?
And the rest of the video? I got to 22:50 'No one has ever nailed down a good hard solid definition of species'
"a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name" - from here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species.
Its the same old creationist crap that has been refuted many (about a thousand I think) times, from a man who has been shown to have no grasp of science or the scietific method. I really can't believe you're still quoting a known criminal.
Also, if all the dating methods were incorrect, how do you account for the light travelling from distant stars taking billions of years to get here?
Please don't quote anything to do with the decreasing speed of light over time or Barry Stetterfield.
And the rest of the video? I got to 22:50 'No one has ever nailed down a good hard solid definition of species'
"a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name" - from here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species.
Its the same old creationist crap that has been refuted many (about a thousand I think) times, from a man who has been shown to have no grasp of science or the scietific method. I really can't believe you're still quoting a known criminal.
Also, if all the dating methods were incorrect, how do you account for the light travelling from distant stars taking billions of years to get here?
Please don't quote anything to do with the decreasing speed of light over time or Barry Stetterfield.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
so...did they just bring him in for a laugh?
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Galileo, that my friend is textbook physics. Light travell at a constant speed in vacuum. I am so astonished by how narrowminded you have to be to justify your belife that god made the earth.
This my friends is a neverending debate since the loosing side can never cope with the fact that they are wrong or misguided.
This my friends is a neverending debate since the loosing side can never cope with the fact that they are wrong or misguided.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
it seems we have fresh meat ^_^!
guys be sure to browse the forum content for laughs.
i'll garantee that every argument you hear from the creationists side is probably listed several times in the records.
oh and could you new guys do me a favor? can you go and fill in your stats in my stats thread. i't probably buried several pages bakc, but i'm sure you can find it if you look at the topics i posted.
tnx in advance.
oh and to all creationist who read this FILL IN THE STATS TOO PLZ.
AND DON"T TROL THE STAT POST LIKE KENT AND BIGDOG DID!
regretably that also cause some of us here to jump ahead and respond..filling the topic with fodder....
here's the link
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
funny thing is i got this site linked by VenomFangX on youtube as h tried to convince me of Hovind having evidence for creation and after reading the forum i just thought "evey single thing these people say is so what i thought!". And i mean the logical people in that statement.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Quote: (Scientist John) Woodmorappe gives over 300 sets of dates "that are in gross conflict with one another and with expected values for their indicated paleontological positions." This table is limited to dates that approach 20% discrepancy, too old or too young. This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable. He states that the number of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone's guess. He also combines evidence from the literature to conclude that "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS." I believe this estimate even includes igneous bodies with very wide biostrategraphic limits, and does not include unpublished anomalies.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Anomalies%20of%20radiometric%20dating
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
aaah woodmorappe.
odd that he doesn't seem to be well respected in the scientific community,
i noticed that his biogpraphy is a well constructed story on "how one man came to beleive genesis".
of course the biograhpy only appears on christian sites....what a coincidence...
so quoting him will......not rly support your arguement.
i also notice nowwhere does it say he wrote a thesis...interesting.
and no where can i find apicture of his face...
somethign leads me to beleive this mad is a "self made" scientist that the people at ICR promoted, or perhaps...made up.
but lets look at the quote.
oh w8, i already did, i dealt with it in a previous post you knwo the one where i pull apart the paragrahp of your article?
and i expose it for the quotemining, conformationbiased and vague sourced article that it is.
to bad bigdog, you fail...again...
oh ya and it would be better to not quote the work of someone who the scientific community has deal with apporpiately, read he wiki link.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I knew that you would do this. Attack the man and ignore the evidence because he believes in the Bible. This is a great example that Ben Stein showed as well on how if you expose the silliness of the radio-metric dating game and evolution your name becomes mud to evolution lovers. Classic.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
" Attack the man and ignore the evidence because he believes in the Bible."
no. i look at your arguments, and if they suck i'll say so.
"This is a great example that Ben Stein showed as well on how if you
expose the silliness of the radio-metric dating game and evolution your
name becomes mud to evolution lovers. Classic."
and yet still 95% of all scienitsts believ in evolution in the US.
how does this figure?? if there is STILL a majority that forces the rest to accept it. HOW COME 2/3 of all scientics believe in god??
that's a lot of christians you are accusing to be traitors man...
because 95-61= 34 51-34=17 (percentage of scientist that believe in god and evolution NOT out of fear.
0.17/0.61= 27.8%
that's 27.8% of all god fearing scientists who you are calling traitors to the faith.
and 72.2% you are saying are hiding out of fear.
of the 61% scientist that accept evolution and god that is.,..
and that leaves 34% of scientists who are atheist and just HATE GOD!!! MWHAHAAHA!!!
and that's JUST IN THE US!
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"I knew that you would do this. Attack the man and ignore the evidence because he believes in the Bible."
actually 1 more thing to say on this.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS IGNORING EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS!
scroll back trough your posts (in the entire forum) and show where you actually made a point that was carefully constructed and did not hinge on sematics or fallacies.
oh, and show me one well grounded rebuttal. you know..the things that you'd find in written debates....
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Nice way to avoid the subject of radio metric dating that I thought we were talking about. All your left with is more blabbering non-sense.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"Nice way to avoid the subject of radio metric dating that I thought we
were talking about. All your left with is more blabbering non-sense."
do i have to say it again?
your supportign article is useless. it's not by a respected scientist. it wasn't published in peer review and it starts with the creationistic conclusion->evidence thought.
it doesn't convince anyone outside of your conformation bias.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
So that's it? So basically every scientist that believes in a young earth you will disregard any evidence. I think I'm done here. Thanks!
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"So that's it? So basically every scientist that believes in a young
earth you will disregard any evidence. I think I'm done here. Thanks!"
personally yes, since from what i've seen your argument don't hold much water.
but, and i forgot to mention this, not only was that article all the things i said previously, it also hinges on a false dichotomy: "you're not right so we are rigth, and the earth was created 6000 years ago by god"
THAT's not even a scientific paper, that's YEC propoganda right there.
EVERY ARGUMENT YOU MAKE, ALWAYS goes from conclusion to evidence, WHICH IS NOT THE WAY WE DO SCIENCE.
or as hovind put it "there are 2 ways of lookign at the evidence"
i agree, there is the conclusion->evidence way, and the evidence-> conclusion way. and YOUR CAMP favors the former by default.
what you are doing now is:
"screw you guys, i'm going home!"
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
Bigdog, you still have yet to give us a source for your 95% claim
If I don't have a source, I have to believe you're lying
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"So that's it? So basically every scientist that believes in a young earth you will disregard any evidence. I think I'm done here. Thanks!"
You know I have never meet a scientist who believes the earth is less than on the order of 4 billion years old. Interesting seeing as how I know so many. Never meet one! Now I have meet MANY who believe in some god...many who believe in the christian god. I would say that MOST of the scientist I know are, in fact, creationist of some sort....however I don't think I would use that word to describe them as they are not retarded....they just think that some god was involved in some way. Never meet a young earth creationist scitentist however....its as if they are the rarest species on the planet....why do you suppose that is...did the evil liberal conspiracy silence them all?
You know I have never meet a scientist who believes the earth is less than on the order of 4 billion years old. Interesting seeing as how I know so many. Never meet one! Now I have meet MANY who believe in some god...many who believe in the christian god. I would say that MOST of the scientist I know are, in fact, creationist of some sort....however I don't think I would use that word to describe them as they are not retarded....they just think that some god was involved in some way. Never meet a young earth creationist scitentist however....its as if they are the rarest species on the planet....why do you suppose that is...did the evil liberal conspiracy silence them all?
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I think I'm done here. Thanks!
Translation: "run away! Run away!"
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Anomalies%20of%20radiometric%20dating"
Well..This is interesting. I don't understand why the computer science department has this up on their sight. Without bothering to read the article in it's entirety, I skipped to the physics as this is my field and usually allows me to determine if I am reading something reputable or not. Evidently the author believes that nuclear decay might be caused from "cosmic rays"....interesting....swing and a miss. Things decay primarily when they tunnel through their potential barrier.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
To Dude: I said 95% of the time dates of a known age are dated wrong. Well? Figure this equation out and tell me what you get. Keep in mind the dates that are not even historical, just guesses, fall into the same percentage.
Quote: (Scientist John) Woodmorappe gives over 300 sets of dates "that are in gross conflict with one another and with expected values for their indicated paleontological positions." This table is limited to dates that approach 20% discrepancy, too old or too young. This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable. He states that the number of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone's guess. He also combines evidence from the literature to conclude that "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS." I believe this estimate even includes igneous bodies with very wide biostrategraphic limits, and does not include unpublished anomalies.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Anomalies%20of%20radiometric%20dating
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
What the hell are you talking about?
This article was definitely epic fail. If the author really has such poor understanding of nuclear decay as to imply that cosmic rays may effect dating methods...I really do not have desire to subject myself to the rest of it. If you insist...I will review it for you...however it is going to be EPIC LARP FAIL...and will just end in tears...I promise.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
bigdog...i've been over that dam quote, and gave it's worth, namely nothing as the author is wel....less then respected in the scientific community.
why do you keep repeating it?
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
To say less than respected is kinda an understatement...I have no idea who this is....none....
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
to bigdog:
UGH!!!
That article made no sense what so ever
Please give us claims from top scientist
not wannabe's who don't know what the hell they're
Thank you
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I said 95% of the time dates of a known age are dated wrong. Well? Figure this equation out and tell me what you get.
Perhaps I'm missing something - hows about you explain it to us? And, as they say in high school math classes, "show your work."
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I'm too lazy to do the math. But the phrase, "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."
This is about a 95% innerrancy. And you still trust this radio-metric dating method?
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"
I'm too lazy to do the math. But the phrase, "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."
This is about a 95% innerrancy. And you still trust this radio-metric dating method?"
I'm too lazy to do the math. But the phrase, "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."
This is about a 95% innerrancy. And you still trust this radio-metric dating method?"
ofc lets not forget where that quote comes from....and what it's supporting evidence is....and it's movtive...and it's fallacy of false dichotomy you use it for.
se esentially bigdog, it's worth is......
"because he said so and i agree with him"
something i for one, do not find very convincing.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
I'm too lazy to do the math. But the phrase, "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF
OF ALL DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE
BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."
I took a quick stab at it - but it turns out that you can't perform a mathematical calculation when one of the values isn't actually a number (like "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF"). Go figure.
This is about a 95% innerrancy. And you still trust this radio-metric dating method?
The word "innerrancy" doesn't mean what you think it means. In fact, it means the exact opposite.
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
re; Bigdog - UGH!!!! Give us an actual equation bigdog
re; innerrancy - Definition - Freedom from error or untruths
In other words, you just admitted to radio-metirc dating as being 95% accurate
Next time you want to make a claim, look the words up :-)
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
"
re; Bigdog - UGH!!!! Give us an actual equation bigdog
re; innerrancy - Definition - Freedom from error or untruths
In other words, you just admitted to radio-metirc dating as being 95% accurate
Next time you want to make a claim, look the words up :-)"
and the autopwnage goes on............
i feel like some1 is just rickrolling us.......
can't seem to shake the feeling that im gonna hear "never gonna tell a lieeeee, and huuuurt youuuuu!" sometime soon
....
vain hope maybe....
» Reply to CommentRe: Age of the Earth
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII JUST WANNA TELL YOU HOW I'M FEELING...
GOTTA MAKE YOUUUUUUUU UNDERSTAND!
no but seriously.
As i have said in another post if the standard anomolies for all the results in a scientific test is above 2%, then it wouldn't be reliable. If it is well used on the other hand, then that shows that it's a well used and good working tool for mesurments. And bigdog how do you think we got to know the so called already known ages of rocks? Did someone at your "University" wrote in a book when they saw a rock pop up from the ground and then you just counted backwards to that date or what?
GOTTA MAKE YOUUUUUUUU UNDERSTAND!
no but seriously.
As i have said in another post if the standard anomolies for all the results in a scientific test is above 2%, then it wouldn't be reliable. If it is well used on the other hand, then that shows that it's a well used and good working tool for mesurments. And bigdog how do you think we got to know the so called already known ages of rocks? Did someone at your "University" wrote in a book when they saw a rock pop up from the ground and then you just counted backwards to that date or what?
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
1. Wikipedia is unreliable.
2. Talkorigins is the equivilent of an evolutionist AnswersInGenesis so because it's biased therefore content on talkorigins is null and void (?).
It's happened before: "In all the times I have seen evolution defenders argue their point, I have noticed something that is always the same.Why oh ehy do evolutionists always use the massively biased talkorigins site which is so pro-evolution it is untrue. It is like me defending creation and citing my source as drdino.com. You wouldn't accept that so please don't quote that rubbish at me. Please provide a more reputable source. And wikipedia can be useful for many things but the trouble is that it can be added to and editted by absolutely anyone and proves nothing. Please cite a scientifically respectable source. And I asked for evidence, not just statements that we then have to assume are true." -The user "Strawman" in this topic about 10 posts from the bottom.