Spin-off Thread

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Riprorin

How old do you think the age of the earth is then?

It's impossible to know with certainty given current dating techniques.
[/quote]

You're being evasive. We're NOT asking you, "What with certainty is the age of the earth?.

Rather, the question is:

What do YOU, Rip, believe the age of the Earth is?

When you tell us that Intelligent Design is the "best explanation" for the diversity of life forms on the planet, you don't claim that ID is known "with certainty". So your standard for making statements clearly isn't that your opinion must be based on certainty.

So stop beating around the bush and answer the question: What do YOU believe the age of the Earth is?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: maluckey
Three minutes ago for all three. I like the nuber three. All these pesky doubters were put here to test my faith.

It goes to show how bad our "science" is ;)that it can hit a comet and take pictures of the event.

Exactly!!!

Don't you find it a simply AMAZING fact that this incredible scientific community that has extended the average human lifespan by 50% in the past 100 years, that designs, builds, and controls spacecraft; that creates ever more amazing technology; that is generally pushing back the boundaries of our ignorance at an ever-accelerating speed - that this self-same scientific community just happens to be completely CLUELESS when it comes to scientific issues that contradict the Bible?

Obviously, the scientific community doesn't walk in lockstep when it comes to origins.

Many eminent scientists reject the theory that all life originated from a single cell organism which formed randomly from inanimate materials.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: krcat1
It has been a long time since I looked at Evolution/Creation websites.

I noticed that the Creationist side is gaining strength.

Link to talkorigins on dating

Instead of arguing with Rip, most of us need to read up on the facts of the debate.

Some of you are ready to rollover on the dating issue.

Where have you've been??? :confused:

Many of the Southern religious States have placed Bans on teaching Evolution and have replaced Science with Bible classes instead.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The entire dating process does not make sense. If man had been around for 200,000 years there would be more evidence of that. If Man as we know had existed 100,000 years ago they should have long ago overpopulated the earth. You listen to a couple of lectures and then you throw logic and common sense out of the window! It just is not logical!!!!!
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Vertimus
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: Riprorin
This is the third thread that I've addressed the first question and I'll respond the same way I already have.

There are problems with all of the dating techniques. I don't know how old the earth is.

How old is the lava dome at Mount St. Helens?

According to radioisotropic dating, the lava dome which formed from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986 is 0.35 to 2.8 million years old!

"Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably."

Link

The lava dome that formed on Mt. St. Helens formed in 1980, but the lava itself is much older. Think about it this way, you have a coke can that is shaken up, when it is opened, coke is often flies out. Was that coca cola fluid formed when it landed on the top or when it was made before the coke was even in the can?

And using such a nonbiased site like creationism.org doesn't help.

However, it is important to remember that all radiometric dating methods are based on three main assumptions:-

The physico-chemical system must have always been closed. Thus no parent, daughter or other decay products within the system can have been removed, and no parent, daughter or other decay products from outside the system can have been added.

The system must initially have contained none of its daughter elements or decay products, or at the very least we need to know the starting conditions/state of the decay system.

The decay rate, referred to as the half-life of the radioactive parent element, must have always been the same, that is, constant.

The highly speculative nature of all radiometric dating methods becomes apparent when one realizes that none of the above assumptions is either valid or provable. Put simply, none of these assumptions can have been observed to have always been true throughout the supposed millions of years the radioactive elements have presumed to have been decaying.

The failure of U-Th-Pb ?dating? at Koongarra, Australia

Yes, I know. That's why when one or more of the assumption fails, scientists discredit the dating, like they did in the link you gave us.

Your point?

I already stated my point:

There are problems with all of the dating techniques.

We can't say with any certainty how old the earth is.

Ocourse there's problems measuring dates, in fuscking lava§!§! That's when it's made! If you take a solid artifact that has'nt been melted, it's bona fide! You'd have to be an idiot to even try to deny that.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Take this little bit of math Assuming Homo-Sapiens were in existence for 200,000 years and the average lifespan of a single mating pair was 50 years. Now on average by the age of 35 thy would have 2 offspring. 200,000 / 35 = 5,714 Generations. I am assuming only 2 offspring but that is probably a bit low. So 2 to the power of 5,714 is a number quite large! The math indicates that the aging process is impossible. Any simpleton can see that. Did you not study math?

 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
1) 4.5-4.6 billion years
2) ~200,000 years
3) Yes and they lived about 250 million years ago but died out about 60-65 million years ago


Those are the commonly accepted timeframes in the scientific community. Let's see how far off Rip is with his uneducated guesses

Really?

There appears to be a range of 150,000 - 1,800,000 yrs regarding the age of homosapiens.

Age of Homo sapiens

How did you arrive at ~200,000 yrs?

Not true.
He said humans lived for 0.04% of earth history.
"Humans like mammals have existed on earth for a relatively short time -- only about 0.04% of the earth's existence."
Humans, would, i have no doubt, mean the Homo order.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that there's no totally specific definition of homo sapiens. But we still need to find the missing link, that's why there's "confusion" (which it isn't, nobody is confued, they just don't know.)
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: maluckey
Three minutes ago for all three. I like the nuber three. All these pesky doubters were put here to test my faith.

It goes to show how bad our "science" is ;)that it can hit a comet and take pictures of the event.

Exactly!!!

Don't you find it a simply AMAZING fact that this incredible scientific community that has extended the average human lifespan by 50% in the past 100 years, that designs, builds, and controls spacecraft; that creates ever more amazing technology; that is generally pushing back the boundaries of our ignorance at an ever-accelerating speed - that this self-same scientific community just happens to be completely CLUELESS when it comes to scientific issues that contradict the Bible?

Obviously, the scientific community doesn't walk in lockstep when it comes to origins.

Many eminent scientists reject the theory that all life originated from a single cell organism which formed randomly from inanimate materials.

lol, what? Many? Even if, how many percent believe that f.ex. iraq was involved in 9/11? And what you say is just bulldroppings.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
Originally posted by: piasabird
Take this little bit of math Assuming Homo-Sapiens were in existence for 200,000 years and the average lifespan of a single mating pair was 50 years. Now on average by the age of 35 thy would have 2 offspring. 200,000 / 35 = 5,714 Generations. I am assuming only 2 offspring but that is probably a bit low. So 2 to the power of 5,714 is a number quite large! The math indicates that the aging process is impossible. Any simpleton can see that. Did you not study math?

Of course that would require us to take a short-sighted assumption that every single person lived to 35 and had two children. Obviously with all the smiting out there, that's simply a horrible assumption to make.

 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Take this little bit of math Assuming Homo-Sapiens were in existence for 200,000 years and the average lifespan of a single mating pair was 50 years. Now on average by the age of 35 thy would have 2 offspring. 200,000 / 35 = 5,714 Generations. I am assuming only 2 offspring but that is probably a bit low. So 2 to the power of 5,714 is a number quite large! The math indicates that the aging process is impossible. Any simpleton can see that. Did you not study math?

I doubt it's that simple! Just think of how fast modern human society is growing! How many people were in the world around 1900, and how many are there now? It's quite clear that you are not looking at the amounts of deaths there were compared to now!
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
Originally posted by: Riprorin

Many eminent scientists reject the theory that all life originated from a single cell organism which formed randomly from inanimate materials.

And yet an estimated 57,300 scientists support the idea that life did originate from a unicellular organism, with the following statement

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Take this little bit of math Assuming Homo-Sapiens were in existence for 200,000 years and the average lifespan of a single mating pair was 50 years. Now on average by the age of 35 thy would have 2 offspring. 200,000 / 35 = 5,714 Generations. I am assuming only 2 offspring but that is probably a bit low. So 2 to the power of 5,714 is a number quite large! The math indicates that the aging process is impossible. Any simpleton can see that. Did you not study math?
What is the point of your post? Trying to show what population should be based upon your wild-ass guesstimate?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
1) 4.5-4.6 billion years
2) ~200,000 years
3) Yes and they lived about 250 million years ago but died out about 60-65 million years ago


Those are the commonly accepted timeframes in the scientific community. Let's see how far off Rip is with his uneducated guesses
Really?

There appears to be a range of 150,000 - 1,800,000 yrs regarding the age of homosapiens.

Age of Homo sapiens

How did you arrive at ~200,000 yrs?
That chart you quoted does not show homo sapiens living 1.8 million years ago. Damn, you SUCK at reading.

"Humans like mammals have existed on earth for a relatively short time -- only about 0.04% of the earth's existence." 1,800,000 years
(0.04% of 4.5 billion)

The Mitochondrial Eve lived in Africa ~150,000 years ago. She wasn't the first homo sapiens. Just the furthest back that could be traced via mitochondrial DNA until the DNA mutations were too minor to detect.
 

Vertimus

Banned
Apr 2, 2004
1,441
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: maluckey
Three minutes ago for all three. I like the nuber three. All these pesky doubters were put here to test my faith.

It goes to show how bad our "science" is ;)that it can hit a comet and take pictures of the event.

Exactly!!!

Don't you find it a simply AMAZING fact that this incredible scientific community that has extended the average human lifespan by 50% in the past 100 years, that designs, builds, and controls spacecraft; that creates ever more amazing technology; that is generally pushing back the boundaries of our ignorance at an ever-accelerating speed - that this self-same scientific community just happens to be completely CLUELESS when it comes to scientific issues that contradict the Bible?

Obviously, the scientific community doesn't walk in lockstep when it comes to origins.

Many eminent scientists reject the theory that all life originated from a single cell organism which formed randomly from inanimate materials.

Did you fail biology? There have been EXPERIMENTS done, that show that a entire host of organic chemicals can be formed from inorganic chemicals, in the early stages of the earth.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
1) 4.5-4.6 billion years
2) ~200,000 years
3) Yes and they lived about 250 million years ago but died out about 60-65 million years ago


Those are the commonly accepted timeframes in the scientific community. Let's see how far off Rip is with his uneducated guesses

Really?

There appears to be a range of 150,000 - 1,800,000 yrs regarding the age of homosapiens.

Age of Homo sapiens

How did you arrive at ~200,000 yrs?

Not true.
He said humans lived for 0.04% of earth history.
"Humans like mammals have existed on earth for a relatively short time -- only about 0.04% of the earth's existence."
Humans, would, i have no doubt, mean the Homo order.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that there's no totally specific definition of homo sapiens. But we still need to find the missing link, that's why there's "confusion" (which it isn't, nobody is confued, they just don't know.)

"Humans like mammals have existed on earth for a relatively short time -- only about 0.04% of the earth's existence."

1,800,000 years
(0.04% of 4.5 billion)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Question #2 was:

How long have homo sapiens been on earth?


That would be ~200,000 years with the mitochondrial Eve having lived about 150,000 years ago (she wasn't the first homo sapiens)
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
1) 4.5-4.6 billion years
2) ~200,000 years
3) Yes and they lived about 250 million years ago but died out about 60-65 million years ago


Those are the commonly accepted timeframes in the scientific community. Let's see how far off Rip is with his uneducated guesses

Really?

There appears to be a range of 150,000 - 1,800,000 yrs regarding the age of homosapiens.

Age of Homo sapiens

How did you arrive at ~200,000 yrs?

Not true.
He said humans lived for 0.04% of earth history.
"Humans like mammals have existed on earth for a relatively short time -- only about 0.04% of the earth's existence."
Humans, would, i have no doubt, mean the Homo order.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that there's no totally specific definition of homo sapiens. But we still need to find the missing link, that's why there's "confusion" (which it isn't, nobody is confued, they just don't know.)

"Humans like mammals have existed on earth for a relatively short time -- only about 0.04% of the earth's existence."

1,800,000 years
(0.04% of 4.5 billion)

You're still an idiot, he's sayng humans, as in "homo"'s has been living for that long. I don't know if it's true, but it sounds about right. He's not saying homo sapiens. Even the subtext in the link supports what i'm saying here.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Vertimus
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: maluckey
Three minutes ago for all three. I like the nuber three. All these pesky doubters were put here to test my faith.

It goes to show how bad our "science" is ;)that it can hit a comet and take pictures of the event.

Exactly!!!

Don't you find it a simply AMAZING fact that this incredible scientific community that has extended the average human lifespan by 50% in the past 100 years, that designs, builds, and controls spacecraft; that creates ever more amazing technology; that is generally pushing back the boundaries of our ignorance at an ever-accelerating speed - that this self-same scientific community just happens to be completely CLUELESS when it comes to scientific issues that contradict the Bible?

Obviously, the scientific community doesn't walk in lockstep when it comes to origins.

Many eminent scientists reject the theory that all life originated from a single cell organism which formed randomly from inanimate materials.

Did you fail biology? There have been EXPERIMENTS done, that show that a entire host of organic chemicals can be formed from inorganic chemicals, in the early stages of the earth.

If you learned that life formed from a random combination of inanimate materials, you were badly misled.

For your reading pleasure:

Origin of life simulations
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Riprorin
This is the third thread that I've addressed the first question and I'll respond the same way I already have.

There are problems with all of the dating techniques. I don't know how old the earth is.

How old is the lava dome at Mount St. Helens?

According to radioisotropic dating, the lava dome which formed from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986 is 0.35 to 2.8 million years old!

"Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably."

Link
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

Claim CD013.1:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335-343. http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm
Response:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.


Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.
Links:
Henke, Kevin R. n.d. Young-earth creationist 'dating' of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Question #2 was:

How long have homo sapiens been on earth?


That would be ~200,000 years with the mitochondrial Eve having lived about 150,000 years ago (she wasn't the first homo sapiens)

This date is based on "molecular clock" assumptions which are based on evolutionary beliefs regarding when certain events occured.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
Question #2 was:

How long have homo sapiens been on earth?


That would be ~200,000 years with the mitochondrial Eve having lived about 150,000 years ago (she wasn't the first homo sapiens)
This date is based on "molecular clock" assumptions which are based on evolutionary beliefs regarding when certain events occured.
No, they're based upon mutations seen in DNA (mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome) as studied and corroborrated by many different scientists.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Vertimus
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: maluckey
Three minutes ago for all three. I like the nuber three. All these pesky doubters were put here to test my faith.

It goes to show how bad our "science" is ;)that it can hit a comet and take pictures of the event.

Exactly!!!

Don't you find it a simply AMAZING fact that this incredible scientific community that has extended the average human lifespan by 50% in the past 100 years, that designs, builds, and controls spacecraft; that creates ever more amazing technology; that is generally pushing back the boundaries of our ignorance at an ever-accelerating speed - that this self-same scientific community just happens to be completely CLUELESS when it comes to scientific issues that contradict the Bible?

Obviously, the scientific community doesn't walk in lockstep when it comes to origins.

Many eminent scientists reject the theory that all life originated from a single cell organism which formed randomly from inanimate materials.

Did you fail biology? There have been EXPERIMENTS done, that show that a entire host of organic chemicals can be formed from inorganic chemicals, in the early stages of the earth.

If you learned that life formed from a random combination of inanimate materials, you were badly misled.

For your reading pleasure:

Origin of life simulations
Well assuming this guy is right, life must be pretty tough to create from a random combination of inanimate materials. Yet it's fairly obvious that's exactly what we are composed of, since we know all of the chemical components of a human.

So when is ID or creation science going to explain how God did it?