The Age of the Earth - Can it be trusted?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Science is driven soley by evidence. Creationist faith is driven soley by the exclusion of evidence. One of these things is not like the other...

Oky. The amount of c-14 in the earth's atmosphere still has not reached equilibrium, and it has been calculated that it would reach equilibrium in 7000 years. And, with Mass Spectrometry c-14 is still detectable in every rock formation of fossil, proving that everything is younger that 10 000 years.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

Man that must have been a lot of work getting all those images.

Ah, your link didn't work before because it was a .pdf

Dissent from Darwinism

There is a link to the site the list came from, and where the PDF can be viewed.



ETA:

Their arguments against evolution here.

Seems like typical creationist stuff imo. Lumping various theories together etc.

Brought to you by the Discovery Institute of Seattle Washington.

This stuff has been covered ad nauseum in the Origins & Creationism forum.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

And? Never mind a list of names, let's see the overwhelming body if peer reviewed evidence that refutes the overwhelming body if evidence supporting evolution. Twist: there isn't any evidence for creationism or against evolution.

Meanwhile, Project Steve:
ncse.com...

a reply to: IndependentAgent

Another long debunked creationist argument that demonstrates a woeful lack of scientific literacy.

Carbon dating isn't used to date the earth.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Learn. Deny ignorance.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

And? Never mind a list of names, let's see the overwhelming body if peer reviewed evidence that refutes the overwhelming body if evidence supporting evolution. Twist: there isn't any evidence for creationism or against evolution.

Meanwhile, Project Steve:
ncse.com...

I do have letters sent to scientists that say they refuse to put up papper for peer review.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

I've got a hypothetical question for you....

You said you believe the Earth is 7,000 years old, right? So if we were to dig up human remains that were dated to be, say 8,000 years old, you would say that God put them there like that, no? I can go with that. But let's say those remains had enough intact DNA that we were able to produce a viable clone (ethical considerations aside)...What would that mean to you, since per your beliefs, this person never would have actually lived before, and had no human mother and father? Would that not put us on the same level as God, ie. creating a human from 'the dust of the Earth'?

Apologies if that makes no sense or seems offensive. It's 5am, and I've had a bit to drink. I'm genuinely curious what a young-Earth creationist would say about such a scenario, since it's well within the realm of possibility.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent


Carbon dating isn't used to date the earth.

That is because as soon as you date any rock, and get an age, that proves that it is less than 10 000 years old. People have actually had dinosaur bones Carbon dated, without telling them it is a dinosaur bone. They got an age of less that 7 000 years old.

Because it they admit that everything can be carbon dated, they are admitting that it is younger that 10 000 years.

Scientists are not being honest in who things work.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: IndependentAgent

I've got a hypothetical question for you....

You said you believe the Earth is 7,000 years old, right? So if we were to dig up human remains that were dated to be, say 8,000 years old, you would say that God put them there like that, no? I can go with that. But let's say those remains had enough intact DNA that we were able to produce a viable clone (ethical considerations aside)...What would that mean to you, since per your beliefs, this person never would have actually lived before, and had no human mother and father? Would that not put us on the same level as God, ie. creating a human from 'the dust of the Earth'?

Apologies if that makes no sense or seems offensive. It's 5am, and I've had a bit to drink. I'm genuinely curious what a young-Earth creationist would say about such a scenario, since it's well within the realm of possibility.

I did not say 7 000 years exactly, it may be 8 000, but not older that 10 000.

And to the question on creating a human, I would say, No, we would not be at the same level as God because you used "intact DNA". You did not create DNA form dust. If you can create DNA from just dust, and grow a fully functioning human from that, then I might thing Yes.

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent


Carbon dating isn't used to date the earth.

That is because as soon as you date any rock, and get an age, that proves that it is less than 10 000 years old. People have actually had dinosaur bones Carbon dated, without telling them it is a dinosaur bone. They got an age of less that 7 000 years old.

Because it they admit that everything can be carbon dated, they are admitting that it is younger that 10 000 years.

Scientists are not being honest in who things work.

Now that, I do take issue with. Where is the documentation from a dinosaur bone being carbon dated to less than 7,000 years old? Part of science, is that it is independently verifiable, meaning anyone can duplicate the results, so saying scientists are not being honest is a load of crap. Not to mention that carbon dating only works up to a certain age, and is not the method used to date dinosaur fossils.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgunThat's the beauty of science. Old data is discarded or revamped as soon as new data comes along which disproves it.

Totally agree with this sentiment. I think we should listen to what scientists have to say, and we should only trust them as far as this is not an exact figure and be ready for adjustments as they are coming.

Okay so hopefully not going of-topic, but maybe into the realms of fantasy, I read an interesting thread about the search for smaller and smaller particles and with each discovery a smaller "particles" is revealed. You could say that the more you look, the more you will find. So when we try to measure the age of the earth the bigger it gets.

I look at human history and see it repeating itself. Civilisations rise and fall, so what if there is only one lifetime of the earth and we just keep on repeating it over and over within that time-frame and with each repetition our experience differs slightly from the ones before? Maybe this is why there are so many similar tales in the religious texts. Only one small lifetime that we all keep reliving?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent


Carbon dating isn't used to date the earth.

That is because as soon as you date any rock, and get an age, that proves that it is less than 10 000 years old. People have actually had dinosaur bones Carbon dated, without telling them it is a dinosaur bone. They got an age of less that 7 000 years old.

Because it they admit that everything can be carbon dated, they are admitting that it is younger that 10 000 years.

Scientists are not being honest in who things work.

Now that, I do take issue with. Where is the documentation from a dinosaur bone being carbon dated to less than 7,000 years old? Part of science, is that it is independently verifiable, meaning anyone can duplicate the results, so saying scientists are not being honest is a load of crap. Not to mention that carbon dating only works up to a certain age, and is not the method used to date dinosaur fossils.

Every time they do actually date a fossil as being younger that 7 000 years, they keep that out of scientific journal. Because in the scientific community, nothing that was not either peer reviewed op published, it does not exist. That just shows that they are hiding things from the public.

Every time an unfossilized dinosaur dinosaur bone is found, it gets destroyed, and all paperwork on it makes its way to the shredder. All evidence gets erased. That is not how a honest society does things.

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
Every time they do actually date a fossil as being younger that 7 000 years, they keep that out of scientific journal. Because in the scientific community, nothing that was not either peer reviewed op published, it does not exist. That just shows that they are hiding things from the public.

Every time an unfossilized dinosaur dinosaur bone is found, it gets destroyed, and all paperwork on it makes its way to the shredder. All evidence gets erased. That is not how a honest society does things.

Can you back up these claims?

I have heard them before but as yet nobody has offered up some evidence for me to consider. What you're suggesting is a massive cover up.

If "all the evidence gets erased" how do you know it's happening?

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

Every time they do actually date a fossil as being younger that 7 000 years, they keep that out of scientific journal. Because in the scientific community, nothing that was not either peer reviewed op published, it does not exist. That just shows that they are hiding things from the public.

Every time an unfossilized dinosaur dinosaur bone is found, it gets destroyed, and all paperwork on it makes its way to the shredder. All evidence gets erased. That is not how a honest society does things.

I was just going to ignore the rest of this discussion and let you carry on with your archaic (and wrong) young Earth idea, but now you're just spouting nonsense. There are no unfossilized dinosaur bones, for one. Two, fossils are everywhere, so go find me one, I don't care what kind, and I'll be more than happy to take it to my friends at the University of New Mexico and watch (and hell, even film) the entire process of them dating it, start to finish, and return here with the results. Unless you are also calling my friends and I liars?

You're entitled to believe whatever ignorant nonsense you want, but trying to bolster your belief with flat out lies only make you look like a fool.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

Every time they do actually date a fossil as being younger that 7 000 years, they keep that out of scientific journal. Because in the scientific community, nothing that was not either peer reviewed op published, it does not exist. That just shows that they are hiding things from the public.

Every time an unfossilized dinosaur dinosaur bone is found, it gets destroyed, and all paperwork on it makes its way to the shredder. All evidence gets erased. That is not how a honest society does things.

I was just going to ignore the rest of this discussion and let you carry on with your archaic (and wrong) young Earth idea, but now you're just spouting nonsense. There are no unfossilized dinosaur bones, for one. Two, fossils are everywhere, so go find me one, I don't care what kind, and I'll be more than happy to take it to my friends at the University of New Mexico and watch (and hell, even film) the entire process of them dating it, start to finish, and return here with the results. Unless you are also calling my friends and I liars?

You're entitled to believe whatever ignorant nonsense you want, but trying to bolster your belief with flat out lies only make you look like a fool.

I would gladly do that somewhere in the future.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Taking to the people that was in possession of such bones. Being a PI was awesome.

a reply to: IndependentAgent
I look forward to it. Bear in mind, depending on the age of the fossil, it may be too old to carbon date, and will instead have to be dated using radiometric methods.

In fact, I have plenty of marine fossils I've found in the desert out here. Maybe if I have the time this week I'll take one of them down to the University to be dated, and document the process.

edit: how about this one? It oughta come back with a date far, far exceeding 10,000 years.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

You made some extraordinary claims yet provided no extraordinary evidence. Only a one liner anecdote. You could have at least gone into more detail about these people you talked to and what they had to say. At any rate.. since you make claims but withhold evidence I can only conclude you are an accessory in some way shape or form, to the cover up you claim exists.

Or that no such cover up exists.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

I really don't think you understand how the "scientific community" works, and you don't seem to understand the significance of your claims.

If there was ever an unfossilised dinosaur bone found, or a verifiable fossil under 7000 years old, the discovery would be significant enough to give the discover a fair amount of fame, or at least recognition.

Scientists would want to be responsible for bringing to light such significant discoveries, many competing egos would assure any hard evidence would be discussed... if not for altruism then for selfish reasons.

The fact that no one has yet produced any evidence is somewhat telling to the validity of young earther's theories.

Young earth theory is a pretty hard one to still support based on the ever mounting evidence in favour of a 4.5 billion year old earth... however if you have valid evidence, I’m always interested... that's why I’m on a site like this.

;-)

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: IndependentAgent


edit: how about this one? It oughta come back with a date far, far exceeding 10,000 years.

It depends on many factors. Marine animals tend to have more c-14 in their remains. But sure, it might be cool to see what age it gets, and what the difference is when using all available dating methods.

a reply to: IndependentAgent
Alright then. I'll try to make it down there this week, but no promises. It depends what my friends' schedules are like at the University. As soon as they and I are able though, I'll be glad to document the entire process.