Spin-off Thread

[Veramocor]

A spin off thread from the evolution one. Rip refused to answer in the evoultion thread because he said he wanted a new thread.

Well here it is......


1. About how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


2. How long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

3. Did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third

 

[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

 

[dmcowen674]

Good thread.

I watched the Deep Impact probe hit the Temple I comet live last night.

The resulting explosion caught all but two Scientist's (that were mentioned to have won a big pot) off guard.

Most Scientists were expecting a low impact thud on the comet by the washing machine sized probe. What we all saw was a giant explosion with a huge plume extending forward of the comet.

This "impact" helps solidify the theory of how a similar comet impact on Earth near the Yucatan Pennisula off Mexico was the event that killed most of the higher order life on Earth at the time 65 million years ago.

We are monitoring a Comet that has a good chance of a direct strike on Earth in about 30 years that will once again destroy most life on this planet.

We will have to launch a very large powered Nuclear weapon similar to this probe to save the planet.

 

[NJDevil]

but wait, carbon dating was invented by secularists trying to destroy religion, it's completely biased, like the media, argh!

/end of rip impression

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
but wait, carbon dating was invented by secularists trying to destroy religion, it's completely biased, like the media, argh!

/end of rip impression

No, Rip would have pasted some article from one of his off-the-wall religious propaganda sites. He wouldn't have used his own thoughts or words.

 

[Vertimus]

Which thread is this a spin-off of? I'd like to read Rip's posts in that thread

 

[sandorski]

To the best of my calculations, Dog created me no sooner than 10 minutes ago. I say 10, because I figure implanting all these memories and such takes some time? I dunno though, Dog works in mysterious ways and indeed maybe I have yet to be created?

 

[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.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

We couldn't possibly have hit this comet that existed before the planet and us according to members that roar.

Must be another Hollywood special effects stunt.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[NJDevil]

Do you think the Earth is more than a million years old then?

 

[Vertimus]

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.

What you said was: There are problems with all the dating techniques if the ASSUMPTIONS FAIL. Otherwise you said nothing about how dating techniques fail, assuming the assumptions pass. Unless all experiments that date the earth have failed assumptions, we can say with certaincy how old the earth is.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Vertimus

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.

What you said was: There are problems with all the dating techniques if the ASSUMPTIONS FAIL. Otherwise you said nothing about how dating techniques fail, assuming the assumptions pass. Unless all experiments that date the earth have failed assumptions, we can say with certaincy how old the earth is.

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.

It's impossible to know with certainty given current dating techniques.

 

[Vertimus]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Vertimus

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.

What you said was: There are problems with all the dating techniques if the ASSUMPTIONS FAIL. Otherwise you said nothing about how dating techniques fail, assuming the assumptions pass. Unless all experiments that date the earth have failed assumptions, we can say with certaincy how old the earth is.

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.

It's impossible to know with certainty given current dating techniques.

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

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Vertimus

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Vertimus

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.

What you said was: There are problems with all the dating techniques if the ASSUMPTIONS FAIL. Otherwise you said nothing about how dating techniques fail, assuming the assumptions pass. Unless all experiments that date the earth have failed assumptions, we can say with certaincy how old the earth is.

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.

It's impossible to know with certainty given current dating techniques.

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

It's impossible to know with certainty given current dating techniques.

 

[Gaard]

Move on to questions #2 & #3 Rip?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[piasabird]

The thing about carbon dating is it is hard to tell just how accurate it is. No way to test it for accuracy. Who was around 1 million years ago for a verifyable sample to test its voracity?

When you have really old bones or organic material that have been buried or preserved during time in sand or mud or some other material, it makes sense that some other element may have combined with them during time and actually changed them somehow. So are we measuring the old bone or what has been combined with it to make it a fossil? It is a contaminated sample!!!

One big question is always when did man as we know them (Us) begin to be. There are some problems with some of the concepts of life and population theories that tend to point out that if man existed 200,000 years ago, then how come there are not piles of bones all over the earth? Logic dictates that this is an impossibility. If you study population and growth of the civilizations of man from the earliest that we know around the Crescent area of Mesopotania and also the Grain Belts in the Ukraine and the Egyptians and others, outward to other areas, then it seems to point to mankind being around a lot shorter period of time. All the evidence of known time seems to point to the age of man being shorter. This brings me to think that the dating process is somewhat flawed.

The Bible even though some people doubt it may hold some clues about the Earth. Accoding to the bible a great tumultuous event occurred at the time of the great flood. Doesnt matter if you beleive in the flood or not. There is some evidence and even some Native American Legends which point to periods of profound and dramatic seismic events which may have shaped our planet almost in the twinkling of an eye. Whether it was a great flood or just a few fairly heavy times of plate tektonic activity, it is possible that the earth is not now what it was in ancient times as in the bible.

In the American north-west some indians had a legend of a giant inter-mountain lake which was suppose to have disappeared overnight after an earth quake. This was in the area around the great Tetons. They also mentioned this was after a period extended night exceeding 24 hours. The Egyptians have some similar stories about planetary or other bodies that cause significant effects on the earth that even caused the rivers to run backwards. There is much evidence from different sources that the Earth has been changed dramatically. There are cities under the mediteranian covered by water. This all points to the earth possible going through a rather tumultuous event during the time of civilized man. In school I was taught that giant sheets of ice covered the earth during the ice age and that over a long period of time they made valleys and moved rock around changing the earth slowly. They could all be wrong. The changes changing the earth could have been rather suddent and tumultuous. If you dont beleive me go see the park in colorado called "The Garden of the Gods!"

 

[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?

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Do you think the Earth is more than a million years old then?