Gopunk, I knew from your post that you believe the dinosaurs existed, I was being sarcastic because of your comment to me. Yes I do believe that dinosaurs were/are no more than 6,000 years old, there's no evidence to the contrary.
Uh, dude.. there are plants that are over 6,000 years old... lol....
You can't seriously believe that the universe, or even the earth, is only 6,000 years old? LMAO.. We can see how old things are a lot of ways, lol.. fortunately, most things in science are constants, a mathmatical formula exists to figure them out... lol..
We can "see" further than 6,000 years back in time just by drilling into the earth and taking a sample of it. A great example of this is the several hundred foot long core sample of the hill Tri-Met had to tunnel through to build the East/West MAX line here in Portland.
It goes back to when western Oregon was a freakin lava pit. A bit more than 6,000 years ago.
You can't seriously believe that the universe, or even the earth, is only 6,000 years old? LMAO.. We can see how old things are a lot of ways, lol.. fortunately, most things in science are constants, a mathmatical formula exists to figure them out... lol..
We can "see" further than 6,000 years back in time just by drilling into the earth and taking a sample of it. A great example of this is the several hundred foot long core sample of the hill Tri-Met had to tunnel through to build the East/West MAX line here in Portland.
It goes back to when western Oregon was a freakin lava pit. A bit more than 6,000 years ago.
"Uh, dude.. there are plants that are over 6,000 years old... lol...."
If you are referring to dendrochronology then you need to look closer. If not links/references?
"You can't seriously believe that the universe, or even the earth, is only 6,000 years old? LMAO.. We can see how old things are a lot of ways, lol.. fortunately, most things in science are constants, a mathmatical formula exists to figure them out... lol..
We can "see" further than 6,000 years back in time just by drilling into the earth and taking a sample of it. A great example of this is the several hundred foot long core sample of the hill Tri-Met had to tunnel through to build the East/West MAX line here in Portland.
It goes back to when western Oregon was a freakin lava pit. A bit more than 6,000 years ago. "
Theory and conjecture! what dating methods are used???
If you are referring to dendrochronology then you need to look closer. If not links/references?
"You can't seriously believe that the universe, or even the earth, is only 6,000 years old? LMAO.. We can see how old things are a lot of ways, lol.. fortunately, most things in science are constants, a mathmatical formula exists to figure them out... lol..
We can "see" further than 6,000 years back in time just by drilling into the earth and taking a sample of it. A great example of this is the several hundred foot long core sample of the hill Tri-Met had to tunnel through to build the East/West MAX line here in Portland.
It goes back to when western Oregon was a freakin lava pit. A bit more than 6,000 years ago. "
Theory and conjecture! what dating methods are used???
Petrek, I have one suggestion for you. Don't let the Bible do the thinking for you. It's great literature with good moral stories, but taking the bible as absolute fact and the basis of science is the most damaging thing any intelligent human being can do to themselves.
No, I was referring to the oldest living plant in the world. The "Tasmanian bush" is over 40,000 years old, a self-cloning plant. It's also huge.
Even the Bristlecone pines are 4,600 years old.
We can date things because we know how fast certain radioactive isotopes break down. It's a constant. If we look at the stage of decay the isotope is in, we can figure out how old it is.
Radioactive Carbon-14 is produced when nitrogen-14 is bombarded with cosmic rays in the atmosphere. It drifts down to earth and is absorbed from the air by plants. When you eat the plants, you take the Carbon-14 into your body. When a living organism dies, it stops absorbing C-14, and C-14 thats already there starts to deca. The half life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years. The Carbon-14 dating method is accurate to about 50,000 years. After that, theres too little left in the organic sample to be dated reliably.
The half life of Uranium-238 is 4,470,000,000 years. lol
Even the Bristlecone pines are 4,600 years old.
We can date things because we know how fast certain radioactive isotopes break down. It's a constant. If we look at the stage of decay the isotope is in, we can figure out how old it is.
Radioactive Carbon-14 is produced when nitrogen-14 is bombarded with cosmic rays in the atmosphere. It drifts down to earth and is absorbed from the air by plants. When you eat the plants, you take the Carbon-14 into your body. When a living organism dies, it stops absorbing C-14, and C-14 thats already there starts to deca. The half life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years. The Carbon-14 dating method is accurate to about 50,000 years. After that, theres too little left in the organic sample to be dated reliably.
The half life of Uranium-238 is 4,470,000,000 years. lol
Eli, that was a nice reasonable try you made there, but the half life of radioisatopes has to be in error because the universe is only 6000 years old. Please try to understand that any and all evidence that the earth is over 6000 years old is completely wrong, one way or the other because it says in the bible that the earth is only 6000 years old and that's the end of it. You have got to get it through your noodle that the Bible can't be wrong. If the Bible is wrong then, if the Bible is wrong, then................. Well it can't be wrong.
Well, just to inject a bit more controversy into this thread
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010305.asp
<< 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." >>
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010305.asp
<< 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." >>
<< Well, just to inject a bit more controversy into this thread
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010305.asp
<< 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." >>
>>
Fact: the majority is usually wrong
How does the 'young earth theory' (it's not even a thesis!) explain the fact that even with a $50 telescope, one can watch stars etc. in the state they were many (millions of) years ago, because the light of these has to travel such large distances to reach our planet?
Ah wait, don't tell me: the same supernatural being/alien civlization responsible for the creation of the universe and all life in it created this fake evidence to make it appear that the universe was much older than it really was.
Uh uh.
<< Well, just to inject a bit more controversy into this thread
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010305.asp
<< 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." >>
>>
LMAO....
I'm a creationist, but uh.. I know the earth is more than 6,000 years old.. It's a no brainer. You don't get rock formations like the earth has after a mere 6,000 years.
It took thousands of years for the craters in the Willamette meteorite found in West Linn to form after it landed somewhere in Canada or Washington, and was transported down here and left ontop of a hill when the glaciers were receeding ~10,000 years ago.
Do you think the science of geology is bunk, then? Damn.. I mean, I believe in the bible too.. but you can look all around you and see that the earth can't only be 6,000 years old.
I'm a creationist, but uh.. I know the earth is more than 6,000 years old.. It's a no brainer. You don't get rock formations like the earth has after a mere 6,000 years.
It took thousands of years for the craters in the Willamette meteorite found in West Linn to form after it landed somewhere in Canada or Washington, and was transported down here and left ontop of a hill when the glaciers were receeding ~10,000 years ago.
Do you think the science of geology is bunk, then? Damn.. I mean, I believe in the bible too.. but you can look all around you and see that the earth can't only be 6,000 years old.
Hey what about the span of time in which there existed Middle Earth?
Tolkein said it, and I believe it to be true, so it must be true. Right?
BTW, they aren't dinosaur bones, just hobbit fossils put together all wonky.
Tolkein said it, and I believe it to be true, so it must be true. Right?
BTW, they aren't dinosaur bones, just hobbit fossils put together all wonky.
as to how old the earth is... i don't think we can ever know for sure.
one thing for sure... no one is old enough to have seen the beginning of the earth...
and is still living to tell us of it.
so with the mystery out of the way...
i'll say this.
since it is an uncertainty, i think it's irresponsible for anyone to say one thing or another with dogmaticism. for christians out there who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and not some billions... i'm quite intrigued to ask you... what is your canon for literal and non-literal reading?
think with me for a second. i've seen plenty of people who've told me that Jesus is coming back on this day... or that day. they all had their own biblical calculations about it. and they believed it with their life.
while i'm not criticizing their faith, i am questioning their dogmaticism about a gray issue.
for those that say that the earth is 4.6 billion years old...all these different dating systems are quite intriguing. but they are not without big holes. i am also amazed at these dogmatic evolutionists that believe this magical number, 4.6 billion, with such great conviction that they refuse to give any possibility of this being wrong.
the fact is... it's a guestimate.
ok... at best, it's an educated guestimate.
not something to hang your life on.
for those people who believe in 4.6 b, let me give you something to chew on.
the age of the earth is...
i've wondered this back in my highschool class when the teacher was talking about this subject...
Shrinking Sun- "By analyzing data from Greenwich [Observatory] in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician from Boston) have found evidence that the Sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet an hour. Digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage." Physics Today reported in 1979. Extrapolation from these numbers leads us to believe that 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its current size, making life on earth unthinkable. 100 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were supposedly roaming the earth, the sun's perimeter would have extended well beyond the earth's current position. One can only conclude from this finding that the earth is beyond all reasonable doubt younger than 100,000 years old.
no matter how you look at it, it's a gray issue.
so let's do our studies and take our best guestimate at it.
but please... people... keep in mind that it's a gray issue.
don't hang your life on it. stay openminded.
don't burn others that do not share your dogmaticism.
one thing for sure... no one is old enough to have seen the beginning of the earth...
and is still living to tell us of it.
so with the mystery out of the way...
i'll say this.
since it is an uncertainty, i think it's irresponsible for anyone to say one thing or another with dogmaticism. for christians out there who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and not some billions... i'm quite intrigued to ask you... what is your canon for literal and non-literal reading?
think with me for a second. i've seen plenty of people who've told me that Jesus is coming back on this day... or that day. they all had their own biblical calculations about it. and they believed it with their life.
while i'm not criticizing their faith, i am questioning their dogmaticism about a gray issue.
for those that say that the earth is 4.6 billion years old...all these different dating systems are quite intriguing. but they are not without big holes. i am also amazed at these dogmatic evolutionists that believe this magical number, 4.6 billion, with such great conviction that they refuse to give any possibility of this being wrong.
the fact is... it's a guestimate.
ok... at best, it's an educated guestimate.
not something to hang your life on.
for those people who believe in 4.6 b, let me give you something to chew on.
the age of the earth is...
i've wondered this back in my highschool class when the teacher was talking about this subject...
Shrinking Sun- "By analyzing data from Greenwich [Observatory] in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician from Boston) have found evidence that the Sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet an hour. Digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage." Physics Today reported in 1979. Extrapolation from these numbers leads us to believe that 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its current size, making life on earth unthinkable. 100 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were supposedly roaming the earth, the sun's perimeter would have extended well beyond the earth's current position. One can only conclude from this finding that the earth is beyond all reasonable doubt younger than 100,000 years old.
no matter how you look at it, it's a gray issue.
so let's do our studies and take our best guestimate at it.
but please... people... keep in mind that it's a gray issue.
don't hang your life on it. stay openminded.
don't burn others that do not share your dogmaticism.
GasX
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 29,033
- 6
- 81
<< the age of the earth is... >>
That is not so much something to chew on as something to waste a few hours debunking. Unfortunately I don't have time for it. Suffice it to say this distresses me as it would be an enjoyable exercise.
<< One can only conclude from this finding that the earth is beyond all reasonable doubt younger than 100,000 years old. >>
One can conclude a million things from this that support whatever side of the arguement you are on. That statement as it stands is absurd
<< no matter how you look at it, it's a gray issue. >>
True enough, true enough
<< Four hundred years ago, people were taught that the earth was flat. Anyone who dissented was branded a heretic and a scientific idiot. >>
400 years ago preceeded the elightenment and the rediscovery of the scientific method. For all intensive purposes there was no science. Those that believed the earth were flat were vastly in the ignorant masses (the ignorant religious masses actually). It could be argued that those that said the earth was round were in fact the scientists of their era. There was an egyptian scientist (he was a scientist because he used logic and a test to prove his theory) that figured out the diamter of the earth well before the BC.
<< Theory and conjecture! what dating methods are used??? >>
Your ignorance of basic geological and physical theories and properties does not make evidence or even an arguement.
<< Shrinking Sun- "By analyzing data from Greenwich [Observatory] in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician from Boston) have found evidence that the Sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet an hour. Digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage." Physics Today reported in 1979. Extrapolation from these numbers leads us to believe that 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its current size, making life on earth unthinkable. 100 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were supposedly roaming the earth, the sun's perimeter would have extended well beyond the earth's current position. One can only conclude from this finding that the earth is beyond all reasonable doubt younger than 100,000 years old. >>
As someone who actually TOOK a STATISTICS course in college let me educate you about the first RULE of statistical analysis. YOU CAN'T INTERPOLATE DATA BEYOND THE RANGE OF DATA COLLECTED. In other words, you can't construe that if the diamter of the sun is reducing currently that it was doing so 100 million years ago unless you have a measurement from a 100 million years ago to back it up. If you assume a linear progression on data beyond the limits of your data you WILL be wrong in 90% of the cases where you dont' have a mathmatical relationship to prove a relationship. See this is the fundemental problem with arguements of this type, they attempt to convince the layman by BLATENTLY violating the rules!
Gopunk, I knew from your post that you believe the dinosaurs existed, I was being sarcastic because of your comment to me.
i had guessed you were attempting to be witty, but i was confused, because your statement made absolutely no sense. in order for sarcasm to work, it has to at least logically fit.
Yes I do believe that dinosaurs were/are no more than 6,000 years old, there's no evidence to the contrary.
i think a lot of people a lot smarter than you would beg to differ.
i had guessed you were attempting to be witty, but i was confused, because your statement made absolutely no sense. in order for sarcasm to work, it has to at least logically fit.
Yes I do believe that dinosaurs were/are no more than 6,000 years old, there's no evidence to the contrary.
i think a lot of people a lot smarter than you would beg to differ.
<< Damn.. I mean, I believe in the bible too.. but you can look all around you and see that the earth can't only be 6,000 years old. >>
How about this? I'm a practicing Christian (Lutheran). I believe the earth to be billions of years old. I believe in evolution. I believe in stem cell research. I believe abortion should remain legalized.
OK, I just want to address some of the broad trashing of "religion" and "christianity" because some Christians/ religious people believe the earth is 6000 years old.
Not all religious/christian people believe in a young earth/universe - not by far. Most of you know me as "that religous guy" or "the resident Catholic" and I, and everyone I know, believe earth is 4.6 billions years old. And that life evolved. And that Carbon Dating is pretty reliable (artifacts can be made unreliable to Carbon Dating techniques by exposure to radiation, certain types of fire, etc). Scientific Method, dinosaurs, the Big Bang - all of it fits quite well with my faith in an originating creative entity.
Young Earth Theory usually comes from Bible Literalism. Many of us do not believe in the Young Earth or Bible Literalism - including myself.
Sorry to take a bit of a side-note here, but it irks me to see posts along the lines of "See! A Christian who believes Earth is 6000 years old! Christianity and religion are therefor crazy!".
Carry on.
Not all religious/christian people believe in a young earth/universe - not by far. Most of you know me as "that religous guy" or "the resident Catholic" and I, and everyone I know, believe earth is 4.6 billions years old. And that life evolved. And that Carbon Dating is pretty reliable (artifacts can be made unreliable to Carbon Dating techniques by exposure to radiation, certain types of fire, etc). Scientific Method, dinosaurs, the Big Bang - all of it fits quite well with my faith in an originating creative entity.
Young Earth Theory usually comes from Bible Literalism. Many of us do not believe in the Young Earth or Bible Literalism - including myself.
Sorry to take a bit of a side-note here, but it irks me to see posts along the lines of "See! A Christian who believes Earth is 6000 years old! Christianity and religion are therefor crazy!".
Carry on.
"As someone who actually TOOK a STATISTICS course in college let me educate you about the first RULE of statistical analysis. YOU CAN'T INTERPOLATE DATA BEYOND THE RANGE OF DATA COLLECTED. In other words, you can't construe that if the diamter of the sun is reducing currently that it was doing so 100 million years ago unless you have a measurement from a 100 million years ago to back it up. If you assume a linear progression on data beyond the limits of your data you WILL be wrong in 90% of the cases where you dont' have a mathmatical relationship to prove a relationship. See this is the fundemental problem with arguements of this type, they attempt to convince the layman by BLATENTLY violating the rules! "
rahvin, I'm glad you recognize the problem associated with radiometric dating, and why carbon dating etal are not the absolute dating methods that scientists and the masses claim them to be.
rahvin, I'm glad you recognize the problem associated with radiometric dating, and why carbon dating etal are not the absolute dating methods that scientists and the masses claim them to be.
<< Christianity and religion are therefor crazy!". >>
Not only for that reason
Did you know, for example, that this universe was created by aliens from another universe? They also happened to create all life and they are constantly studying us.
Your 'faith' is not any better than the above 'theory', for obvious reasons.
--
Not trying to flame you, just pointing something out
LOL, I remember watching some video at my roommate's church once when I was 17 that stated quite matter-of-factly that "the Earth is generally agreed to be about 10,000 years old." I let out a quick laugh. I just couldn't help it. There was one quiet "shhhhhhh" in reaction to my laugh.
I've read about science technology for as long as I can remember, and I watched the entire series Cosmos on PBS as a child. I remember that I really, really enjoyed that series.
I've read about science technology for as long as I can remember, and I watched the entire series Cosmos on PBS as a child. I remember that I really, really enjoyed that series.
<< Not only for that reason >>
Well, thats your opinion anyway... and it doesn't bother me that you have it.
<< Did you know, for example, that this universe was created by aliens from another universe? They also happened to create all life and they are constantly studying us. >>
Could be... who knows for sure?
<< Your 'faith' is not any better than the above 'theory', for obvious reasons. >>
Ah, but you see, I never claimed it "better", just that it makes sense to me and so I believe it. Remember, I'm not the one here who claims to be unquestionably and irrevokably right about the origins of the universe. In fact, I don't really rule out any theory completely. *Hint hint, cough cough.*
<< Not trying to flame you, just pointing something out >>
Ditto.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter