6000 year old earth

a reply to: Barcs

Yeah, I simply wanted to learn more on this topic, I'm not really set in my ways.

Currently wondering how realized carbon dating is, though. The two others above are having quite the debate over it and I feel like I can take each side and come to my own conclusion on the matter.

a reply to: wisvol

And again, carbon dating isn't the only form of radiometric dating. Hell carbon dating isn't even what is used to date rocks since its max effective range doesn't even break 100,000 years, let alone millions or billions of years.

Carbon Dating

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration.

This is why I accused you of not understanding the science. You are creating a strawman to argue against ALL of radiocarbon dating based on a singular method of radiocarbon dating that isn't even USED for dating rocks.

originally posted by: mazzroth
Forget all the nonsense about how long this planet has been around, if this is a quantum computer we are inside then the turn on date could be 1 fraction of a millisecond ago and the Dinosaurs were already planted into the earth as part of the "sand box" we live in.

When you install and play the latest computer game you don't start out with a blank screen, no all the bits are already in place for you to explore. This would be how the quantum computer would project our environment from the start, time is irrelevant outside of here and the simulation has probably been rebooted with a newer version quite a few times with things added and others removed.

Smart programmers don't program unnecessary bulk code into a program. Why would they care what the people that lived there believed? Why would they program the earth to appear 4.5by old? From a programming perspective it would be a colossal waste of time, and then there's the fact that there are millions of unique star types out there, all programmed individually as waste of space along with all the asteroids, debris, black holes, space dust, etc.

In a program or game, things make sense without explanation because you know it's programmed. In the real world, we can objectively verify things, so a programmed virtual reality doesn't really make sense.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do they find the age of something millions, billions of years old?

a reply to: deadlyhope

This should get the ball rolling:

biologos.org...
www.scientificamerican.com...
www.smithsonianmag.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: deadlyhope

The flood is recorded by other cultures, including the epic of Gilgamesh, Lakota and Hopi nations of America have similar traditional folklore, as have the Chinese (洪水), the Indians (Satapatha Brahmana Veda), the Norse (Bergelmir Þrúðgelmirsen) and others.
To me, fossils of sea dwelling creatures on dry land indicate changes in sea levels, and the estimation of the age of these changes in sea levels shouldn't im my opinion be dependent on radioactivity, or uranium deposits are from the future.

I don't know how the flood links to radioactivity in carbon, but I do know that skeletons from the Ukraine today have far more isotopic carbon than skeletons of people dead the same day in the Philippines, and that alone indicates how the radioactivity of Carbon can be independent from the age of dead things.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are creating a strawman to argue against ALL of radiocarbon dating based on a singular method of radiocarbon dating that isn't even USED for dating rocks.

Nice strawman.

My response to the carbon dating question has nothing to do with my response to you.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I posted two types here at this post and how they work.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are creating a strawman to argue against ALL of radiocarbon dating based on a singular method of radiocarbon dating that isn't even USED for dating rocks.

Nice strawman.

My response to the carbon dating question has nothing to do with my response to you.

Dude you don't even have a proper reasoning for why you think radiocarbon dating isn't scientific. You've failed to mention how it violates the scientific method or explain how the calculations used aren't trustworthy. Your best explanation is about the inconsistency of c-14 dating and even that is poor since it still doesn't explain how it violates the scientific method (which is what you mean when you say that something isn't scientific).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You might benefit from reading this thread again.

Again, the rock dating technique through radioactivity violates the scientific method by negating data from most radioactive rocks.

The c-14 dating technique violates the scientific method by assuming all living things have similar amounts of isotopic carbon through their generations and lifestyles, which they don't.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I usually skip over things that look like quotes from other posts - oops! That is some compelling evidence for dating way back, though. How does one determine a half life of so many years, though?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You might benefit from reading this thread again.

Again, the rock dating technique through radioactivity violates the scientific method by negating data from most radioactive rocks.

Yes. You said that, but you failed to explain how or what you mean by that.

The c-14 dating technique violates the scientific method by assuming all living things have similar amounts of isotopic carbon through their generations and lifestyles, which they don't.

You do realize that c-14 (and radiometric dating as a whole) is based on carbon percentages right and NOT total carbon absorbed into the life form?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is where I get a bit lost - to know a percentage, wouldn't you have to know the original amount, as in assume the number of unstable nuclei held within whatever you are observing, all that time ago?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I usually skip over things that look like quotes from other posts - oops! That is some compelling evidence for dating way back, though. How does one determine a half life of so many years, though?

Well you measure the decay rate of the isotope over real time (say over a time period of seconds, minutes, or days) then extrapolate that out to when there would only be half of that isotope left in the substance. Kind of like how you say you are going 60 mph in a car so you can extrapolate that it will take 4 hours to go 240 miles.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is where I get a bit lost - to know a percentage, wouldn't you have to know the original amount, as in assume the number of unstable nuclei held within whatever you are observing, all that time ago?

Not necessarily. They use the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the item to determine how much it has decayed so far.

CARBON-14 DATING

To measure the amount of radiocarbon left in a artifact, scientists burn a small piece to convert it into carbon dioxide gas. Radiation counters are used to detect the electrons given off by decaying Carbon-14 as it turns into nitrogen. In order to date the artifact, the amount of Carbon-14 is compared to the amount of Carbon-12 (the stable form of carbon) to determine how much radiocarbon has decayed. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 is the same in all living things. However, at the moment of death, the amount of carbon-14 begins to decrease because it is unstable, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. Half of the carbon-14 degrades every 5,730 years as indicated by its half-life. By measuring the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of the artifact.

Scientists can also corroborate radiometric dating with objects dug up around the object in question. So if they have a vase that they know how old is dug up alongside a body. They can say that the body and vase likely are the same age. So if the radiocarbon dating comes back with a similar age, then they know they are correct.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does that help you get the original time frame though? The car example is easy because it has to do with distance traveled, not time existed.

Half is a weird term to me I guess.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This explains it quite well - if all living things have the same ratio, and this is proven, and carbon 12 is always the same, and carbon 14 always changes at the same rate, thus changing the ratio... It seems quite valid. I didn't realize this is how it was done

originally posted by: wisvol
The flood is recorded by other cultures, including the epic of Gilgamesh, Lakota and Hopi nations of America have similar traditional folklore, as have the Chinese (洪水), the Indians (Satapatha Brahmana Veda), the Norse (Bergelmir Þrúðgelmirsen) and others.

There was never a worldwide flood, only lots of isolated local floods when the last glacial period was ending.

To me, fossils of sea dwelling creatures on dry land indicate changes in sea levels, and the estimation of the age of these changes in sea levels shouldn't im my opinion be dependent on radioactivity, or uranium deposits are from the future.

To me, you are using textbook creationist arguments that have been long debunked. Sea fossils are found on land because of continental drift and uplift. If you don't understand those concepts, you need to immediately cease and desist with your faulty argument and go read about them. Scientifically illiterate people should not discuss science.

I don't know how the flood links to radioactivity in carbon, but I do know that skeletons from the Ukraine today have far more isotopic carbon than skeletons of people dead the same day in the Philippines, and that alone indicates how the radioactivity of Carbon can be independent from the age of dead things.

I don't think you understand a single concept you talk about. Are you trolling AGAIN?

a reply to: wisvol

[citation needed]

I have read some articles in the past about a particular thing happening approximately 6,000 to 8,000 years ago that had to do with increased growth of the corpus collosum, a collection of neurons that join the two halves of the human brain together. It has been theorized that prior to that time, the two hemispheres of the brain were separated much more, and the result was that people had the experience of the two hemispheres "talking" to each other in such a way that it might have seemed like they were receiving messages from beyond, or even the voice of God. Early humans might have perceived the world as a much more mystical place to everyone, and not just the occasional raving kook.

When the corpus collosum expanded, possibly due to people eating more sugar and grains, and with the two brain hemispheres communicating more efficiently, that sense of mystery rapidly vanished, and people might have finally been able to see existence in a much more rational and practical way.

So, in a way, it may have seemed like "the world as we know it" actually did come into rational existence around that time.

The end result, of course, was that "God" stopped talking to most of us, we got kicked out of Eden, and we figured out how to efficiently live in larger cities instead of wandering tribes. We still get the occasional "prophet," stirring things up, but fewer and fewer since the world began 6,000 or so years ago.