I thought the world was only 5 million years old...

[petrek]

"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"

"Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service claim their results show that it is indeed one plant. It is, in fact, a clonal species: it produces new shoots by cloning itself, independent of any other plants.
A fossil of an identical specimen was found near the same mountainside site. Its age at over 40,000 years was determined using conventional dating techniques"

notice his use of the words "conventional dating techniques", ie: radiometric dating

"Even the Bristlecone pines are 4,600 years old."

Do your research, as of current understanding up to 5 rings can be produced a year.


As for the rest of your post you are assuming radiometric dating is an absolute dating method, and with a bit of extra research on your part you will see that it is NOT.

 

[BDawg]

Site With Evidence Disproving Young Earth "Facts"

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Not only for that reason >>


Well, thats your opinion anyway... and it doesn't bother me that you have it. >>

Good


<<

<< 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? >>

Indeed... 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. >>

Ouch...

You say that it 'makes sense' to you. You must have found something, some evidence which is in favour of the 'god-theory'. With this, you basically show that you think that the 'god-theory' is superior to the 'aliens-from-another-universe-theory', or any other 'theory', for that matter.


<< 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.* >>

Then why do you prefer one over all other 'theories' if you don't base it on any evidence (nothing metaphysical. I'm talking scientific evidence here)


<<

<< Not trying to flame you, just pointing something out >>


Ditto. >>

Once again, just trying to point something out =)

 

[petrek]

"Rahvin's points have nothing to do with radiometric data."

Actually, yes they do.

 

[Cattlegod]

Do YOUR research, the earth IS FLAT!


Oh, and it is only 2002 years old, not 6000 because jesus was born then and that means the earth was created.



You think those two ideas sound retarded? well that is how you sound if you think the earth is not 4.6b years old to us.

 

[Elledan]

<< "Rahvin's points have nothing to do with radiometric data."

Actually, yes they do. >>

Actually, no they didn't.

Read back.

 

[Optimus]

<< You say that it 'makes sense' to you. You must have found something, some evidence which is in favour of the 'god-theory'. With this, you basically show that you think that the 'god-theory' is superior to the 'aliens-from-another-universe-theory', or any other 'theory', for that matter.
...
Then why do you prefer one over all other 'theories' if you don't base it on any evidence (nothing metaphysical. I'm talking scientific evidence here)
>>



Well, let's not hijack this thread , but it basically boils down to my accepting different evidence than you do. From my starting evidence, my conclusions are sound. From your starting evidence, yours are sound.

We can't know who is right about what evidence to accept because what we accept as evidence is a judgement call based on who we are as individuals. Perception plays such a key role in what we accept as "real" (evidence) that we can't accurately know whether anyone in our species is even capable of proper observation - which would nullify everything we "know".

Did I just get metaphysical?

You see, your acceptance of observation skews heavily toward exclusive physical evidence, while mine gets more metaphysical than you do... etc.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< You say that it 'makes sense' to you. You must have found something, some evidence which is in favour of the 'god-theory'. With this, you basically show that you think that the 'god-theory' is superior to the 'aliens-from-another-universe-theory', or any other 'theory', for that matter.
...
Then why do you prefer one over all other 'theories' if you don't base it on any evidence (nothing metaphysical. I'm talking scientific evidence here)
>>



Well, let's not hijack this thread , but it basically boils down to my accepting different evidence than you do. From my starting evidence, my conclusions are sound. From your starting evidence, yours are sound. >>

I accept non-metaphysical evidence only. You accept a strange combination of non-metaphysical and metaphysical 'evidence'.



<< We can't know who is right about what evidence to accept because what we accept as evidence is a judgement call based on who we are as individuals. >>

You just made that up, right? What we accept as evidence depends on how it is obtained.


<< Perception plays such a key role in what we accept as "real" (evidence) that we can't accurately know whether anyone in our species is even capable of proper observation - which would nullify everything we "know". >>

I've to disagree again. Only seldom is there a dispute about what is acceptable evidence.



<< Did I just get metaphysical?

You see, your acceptance of observation skews heavily toward exclusive physical evidence, while mine gets more metaphysical than you do... etc. >>

Metaphysics is superstition.

Your mistake is that you accept metaphysical things as 'evidence'. As you might know, to the realm of metaphysics belong those things which can neither be proven nor disproven (also philosophy), including the meaning of life etc.

I, and many others, accept only non-metaphysical evidence. That is, evidence which is gathered through observations, experiments and mathematics.

There is no other way to obtain reliable evidence.

You therefore suffer from superstition.

 

[petrek]

"Actually, no they didn't."

Actually, yes they did.

 

[fatalbert]

10^17 years is an estimate of the age of the universe

 

[Elledan]

<< "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 was talking about interpolating a set of data beyond its range, which is a very bad thing. This does not relate to radiometric dating, carbon dating etc. in any way, because no scientist can even estimate the age of a certain artifact beyond the maximum timespan in which the used methode can give a date.

If a method can reliably give a date within the past 10,000 years, one can not even start to estimate the date of an artifact which is 20,000 years old using the previous method.

There's no interpolating of data.

 

[rahvin]

<< "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. >>



Brush up on your reading comprehension skills bud. I highlighted the naughty bits for you. In radiometric dating there is a mathmatical relationship between decay rates and time (ever heard of a halflife?). In fact radiometric dating has very little to do with statistics, the theories are quite sound and well proven (in fact I remember proving them in Physics).

 

[Optimus]

<< I accept non-metaphysical evidence only. You accept a strange combination of non-metaphysical and metaphysical 'evidence'.
You just made that up, right? What we accept as evidence depends on how it is obtained.
I've to disagree again. Only seldom is there a dispute about what is acceptable evidence.
Metaphysics is superstition.
Your mistake is that you accept metaphysical things as 'evidence'. As you might know, to the realm of metaphysics belong those things which can neither be proven nor disproven (also philosophy), including the meaning of life etc.
I, and many others, accept only non-metaphysical evidence. That is, evidence which is gathered through observations, experiments and mathematics.
There is no other way to obtain reliable evidence.
You therefore suffer from superstition. >>




Sigh.

You know Elledan, you are the single most impossible person to have a rational conversation with that I know. I have a VERY low tolerance for your veiled insults ("you suffer from superstition") and dripping condescension. I've honestly, in all my debates with rational, respectful atheists/agnostics, never run into one so irrational in terms of getting emotional so quickly.

Yes Elledan - emotional. YOU get emotional because you CANNOT stop yourself oozing smugness, superiority, condescension, mockery, etc. These are self-defense mechanisms, used consciously or sub-consciously as forms of agression in instances of conflict.

These are acts of agression, whether you acknowledge them as such or not. Aggression is born from emotional fear.

Now, your immediate defense will be to deny that you started on the offensive:


<< You just made that up, right? >>

- accusation of intentional untruth


<< You accept a strange combination... Your mistake...I, and many others, accept... >>

- thinly veiled attempt to discredit me personally, as abnormal.


<< You therefore suffer from superstition. >>

- direct accusation of mental inferiority in your opponent.

All the above were directed at me personally, not at the arguments. Not much at all considering the flames that usually rage around here, but more than enough for me to recognize a pattern of agression from you in past debates.

Yes - I've gotten aggressive with you too in the past. We didn't get anywhere those times either. I decided to stop taking the bait.


I'm sort of expecting something along the lines of "You didn't respond because you couldn't...", so:

I have a full, and civilized, response to the content of your last post where I discuss observation methods being influenced by preference, the reduction of thought to the absurd, your instant relegation of anything outside the 5 physical senses as "metaphysics", the fact that the acceptance of the method by which we obtain evidence - and the acceptance of those methods - is subject to personal judgement, etc...
But it is impossible and pointless to continue with you once you go on the offensive. Really, if you can just let go of the fear/anger/aggression response to rational discussion (yes, even when you don't agree with your opponent - you usally won't, you know) we could discuss things a lot longer than we do.

<< Not trying to flame you, just pointing something out >>

Have a nice day.

 

[petrek]

et tu brutis!

"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."

 

[xirtam]

Um...

Were you there? No. Did you observe it? No. So we make our guesses based on the evidence that we have. This requires the use of assumptions -- about which we might be right, and we might be wrong. Hardly worth trying to shove down somebody's throat over.

Half a century ago, the common scientific viewpoint was that the age of the earth was around 200 hundred million years. Now it's 17 billion. That's an 8500% increase in 50 years, or 170% per year. Should I conclude that the earth's age increases 1.7 times every year? Extrapolate that one back, and the universe isn't that old...

So why the increase in the age estimate? Some people would say... "well, as we've uncovered more evidence..." but we know that's BS. The more we observe, the more we see that if we are correct in our uniformitarianistic principles, the age of the earth and the age of the universe have to be a lot older to allow for evolution to produce everything it has. So we just look for evidence that might possibly indicate that the earth is such and such an age based on our predisposed notions of how it should be. It's not any better on the young-earth side, though, because there's still just as much guesswork. That's why I've pretty much eliminated this whole earth/universe age notion from my scientific discussions.

 

[Eli]

This thread is almost rediculous, I can't believe we're having a discussion about whether the Earth is older than 6,000 years.. LOL...

I didn't even know there were people that thought the earth was only a thousand anything years old.


You say that carbon dating is flawed. How? Please explain to me. The half-life of Carbon-14, as I was saying, is 5730 years. Even if that figure was off, and it was only 5700, or even 5500 years, or what if it was 5800? The date would still be accurate to within several hundred years.

What about petrified wood? It takes thousands and thousands of years for the cells in the wood to become replaced by minerals.


Come on dude, how can you be serious? lol.. I mean.. The reason our earth doesen't look like the moon is because of the weather, because of erosion. How long do you think it took for formations like the grand canyon to form? How long has it taken for the coliding of plates to form mountain ranges, that are still growing today?

How can you ignore the fact that all of the continents fit together, like a puzzle? How long has it taken them to move to their current locations? The idea that the earth is only 6k, 10k, 20k, 50k.. years old.. just doesen't make any sense.

I'd like to see your evidence..

Uh, yeah, a tree can grow up to 5 rings a year, but they don't. Sometimes 2, and that would be considered a good year. If the cycle of the year goes right, it only buds once. Tree ring dating is accurate.

What about the ~12,000 year old Creosote plant in California called the King Clone?

Damn dude, open your eyes...

 

[petrek]

Eli, read the thread "poll: evolution vs creation" and you'll learn about the flaws in the dating method.

Dave

 

[Scarpozzi]

<< 4.6 billion, my god how old are you???? >>


Agreed...learned it from an old Geology book....

This is also supposed to be the age of the moon as it is actually part of the Earth that was a result of what is called "The Big Whack"...

 

[Eli]

As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with evolution or creation. Why don't you address my points? I don't believe we came from monkeys, but I know the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, rofl.

You can dig hundreds of feet into glaciers and come back with samples that are hundreds of thousands of years old. We can tell because of the state of the things - and sometimes just the things.. trapped inside the ice.

That's the only good thing about math. It doesen't lie. You're telling us it does?

 

[rahvin]

<< Eli, read the thread "poll: evolution vs creation" and you'll learn about the flaws in the dating method. >>



Please, you don't even know what radiometric dating is, the process or mathmatics behind it nor even the assumption behind the earth dating measurement. You have a fundemental lack of knowledge about any of it.



<< Half a century ago, the common scientific viewpoint was that the age of the earth was around 200 hundred million years. Now it's 17 billion. That's an 8500% increase in 50 years, or 170% per year. Should I conclude that the earth's age increases 1.7 times every year? Extrapolate that one back, and the universe isn't that old... >>



Maybe when you have figured out the difference between the age of the universe and the age of the earth (two seperate time spans) you might begin to be inquisitive enough to actually educate yourself about the reason for the 200 hundred million year time frame used (I'll give you a hint, a man by the name of Kelvin was involved).

 

[xirtam]

As far as how long the grand canyon took to form, I have no idea. If we make assumptions about water flow and assume that the canyon formed the way we think it formed -- by a uniformitarianistic erosion -- then sure, maybe a few billion years. But I wasn't there. Could have been catastrophic disposition... Mt. Saint Helens style.

But like I said, I wasn't there. Were you?

Pics?

 

[Eli]

Huh. Last I checked, volcanic eruptions didn't create canyons miles long..

Are you saying you don't believe that the wind and water are what shape our Earth? You don't believe in erosion? :Q

What about Coal and Crude Oil?

Diamonds?

Each of those things takes more than a few thousand years to form.. lol.. I mean, lol.. It just doesen't compute. Man, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old then we've really got problems.. lol

 

[Moonbeam]

There was a huge flood, Eli, and thats when sea shells got on top of mountains and canyons got dug, etc. It's right in the bible.

 

[Eli]

Okay. So.. what about diamonds and crude oil?

 

[xirtam]

<< Huh. Last I checked, volcanic eruptions didn't create canyons miles long.. >>



So it can't happen because it hasn't in the last century? How old are you? Anyway, if you check out the Mt. Saint Helens eruption, you'll see a small-scale grand canyon that was carved in one afternoon. The layers produced by this catastrophic disposition would have taken millions or billions of years by uniformitarian processes. But that's not how the layers were produced.



<< Are you saying you don't believe that the wind and water are what shape our Earth? You don't believe in erosion? >>



Don't put words in my mouth. Of course they shape our Earth. I'm just not closed-minded enough to say for certain that they're the ONLY forces that shape our earth. And there are catastrophic circumstances that can cause these very influences -- as well as others -- to accelerate the



<<
What about Coal and Crude Oil?

Diamonds?
>>



You need one of two conditions to form these things. Either lots of time and a little pressure, or a lot of heat and pressure. Time isn't a necessary component. I'm not saying that they wouldn't ever take that long to form... I'm just saying we have no way of knowing -- without a doubt -- that it takes "x" number of millions of years to form a diamond. We don't know what happened in the development of that diamond.



<< Each of those things takes more than a few thousand years to form... >>



How do you know?