Radiometric dating and long ages

History really repeats itself...


"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think."
-Arthur Shopenhauer

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-Napoleon Bonaparte

Hi ET!

how you doing?
Still battling those "religious" folks, huh.

by the way,
Jesus loves you!

under educated is right. It will remain that way until they stop teaching life came from nothing, for no reason, ...

and then

changed into everything we see today , just because it could.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose

You have stated that they are 'based' on assumptions. Correct, however, those assumptions are extremely reasonable. What evidence suggests that they are not? The evidence seems to suggest, since the independent tests are all in agreement.

This right here, is only what I had hope to show.
I confess right here, I dont have the 'correct / hard fact/ mathematical' answer.
I cant point at something and say, "This is without a doubt, the exact age of anything'.

All I ever wanted was the admission that the billions of years are based on assumptions ....

... even if you add, after that..."but the assumptions are based on the best available knowledge of today".

Thats all.
One day perhaps the numbers will become carved in stone. Until then, I just wanted that.

Originally posted by jake1997
under educated is right. It will remain that way until they stop teaching life came from nothing, for no reason, ...

Why? Do you have scientific evidence to the contrary?

changed into everything we see today , just because it could.

Agian, do you have scientific evidence to the contrary that life does not evolve?

Ignorance is bliss I suppose

Is not ignorance the fundamental position of the creationists? That objective knowledge is immposible and only that whcih agrees, subjectively, with the bible is 'true'?

Originally posted by jake1997
All I ever wanted was the admission that the billions of years are based on assumptions

I don't recall it ever being taught as anything but.
... even if you add, after that..."but the assumptions are based on the best available knowledge of today".

One day perhaps the numbers will become carved in stone. Until then, I just wanted that.

It never will be. The scientific theories on the origin of life, the universe, and everything, are just that, theories, based on evidence and rational thinking. They can't be anymore than that. The theories don't claim to be anymore than that.

Originally posted by Plumbo
Hi ET!

how you doing?
Still battling those "religious" folks, huh.

Yep...

And isn't that latter sentence one the most important parts of christianity?
(one which doesn't separate different people)

Originally posted by jake1997
In the field of medicine, 'science' work like this would result in jail time. People would die. Yet we allow this to go into our schools and be taught to our children as fact. In medicine this would get people killed.

Well... let's check "scientific" curriculum vitae of your holy religion/god.


Some of the greatest atrocities of world history... Checked:
Crusades, burning of people, robbing of South America, accepting slavery...

Partial responsibility to death of major part of Europe's (&known world's) population... Checked:
Black Death was spread by rats and cats would have been effective way of limiting amount of rats, but in its great wisdom church/god had decided cats were in league with satan and therefore required termination.

So doesn't look so bad... and who cares that your "absolute truth", the holy Bible has been modified many times throughout history when church decided to make changes in details like its emphasis to favor their prevailing policy.

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Plumbo
Hi ET!

how you doing?
Still battling those "religious" folks, huh.

Yep...

And isn't that latter sentence one the most important parts of christianity?
(one which doesn't separate different people)

Yeah, I'll admit I've been accused of being dangerous too.
btw, since you're still battlin those "religious" folks, you never did answer my assertion that there was glass in the sky.

Care to contribute to this thread?
www.belowtopsecret.com...'

God Bless You!! buddy.
I've been praying for you.

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Plumbo
Hi ET!

how you doing?
Still battling those "religious" folks, huh.

Yep...

And isn't that latter sentence one the most important parts of christianity?
(one which doesn't separate different people)

Originally posted by jake1997
In the field of medicine, 'science' work like this would result in jail time. People would die. Yet we allow this to go into our schools and be taught to our children as fact. In medicine this would get people killed.

Well... let's check "scientific" curriculum vitae of your holy religion/god.


Some of the greatest atrocities of world history... Checked:
Crusades, burning of people, robbing of South America, accepting slavery...

Partial responsibility to death of major part of Europe's (&known world's) population... Checked:
Black Death was spread by rats and cats would have been effective way of limiting amount of rats, but in its great wisdom church/god had decided cats were in league with satan and therefore required termination.

So doesn't look so bad... and who cares that your "absolute truth", the holy Bible has been modified many times throughout history when church decided to make changes in details like its emphasis to favor their prevailing policy.

There we go. You just failed. Come back and try again when you know what a christian is.
Till then, your words are wasted space. You may as well attribute islams holy wars to Christ as well.
Ya know, above all else, logic would have told me that atheists should be able to judge what is a christian and what is not. I see that the opposite is true.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Why? Do you have scientific evidence to the contrary?

You know that this stuff is taught as fact when it is at best, and idea.
There is no need to disprove a thing that has not, and can not, be proven.

Is not ignorance the fundamental position of the creationists? That objective knowledge is immposible and only that whcih agrees, subjectively, with the bible is 'true'?

That could easily be made out to be darwinists.
The creationist view is, If its going to be taught as truth or fact, then make sure thats what it is. If its not, then it should not have any more right to the spot light then anything else.

I have posted these explanations in the Evolution thread but I will post them here as well since this is what this topic pertains to.

Thermoluminescence dating.

It is a dating method that is in its infancy. The dating mathod is used for the dating of Rocks, Lava, Burnt Flint, Clay, and layers of sediment and is based on the storage of information about the absorbed radiation energy in inorganic crystals ( making this dating method useless for dating fossils). Basically the age it can predict is between 10 and 230,000 years.

However, it is only 15% accurate for a single sample and between 7% and 10% for a suite of samples.

www.mnsu.edu...

For example one of the main ways scientists date the earth and fossils is with Radiometric dating of one form or another which is highly inaccurate. All dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.

2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes

3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material


A perfect example of this is the dating performed on lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. One flow occured in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975. However when dated the rocks dated between 270,000 years to 3.5 Million years

Ref:

A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Nguaruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon ‘Dating,’ Proc. 4th ICC, pp.503-525, 1998


Also Carbon-14 Dating is used to date items up to 50,000 years so your claim about christians using it wrong is complete BS.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Another problem is that according to science after 50,000 years all the C-14 in an item should be released. So Science has Carbon dated many items to test this. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of Carbon 14. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks Carbon 14.

Ref:

D.C. Lowe, Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free Background Material, Radiocarbon, 31:117-120, 1989.

Originally posted by jake1997
You know that this stuff is taught as fact when it is at best, and idea.
There is no need to disprove a thing that has not, and can not, be proven.

Its not taught as fact, its clearly taught as an extremely well supported theory. Theories can't be proven, but evolution is as much a 'fact' as 'electricity' is.

That could easily be made out to be darwinists.

Thing is, if one did make it out like that, one would be wrong. Evolution is science, science is, definitionally, objective knowledge. Religion is precisely the opposite.

The creationist view is, If its going to be taught as truth or fact, then make sure thats what it is.

Since the theory of evolution is not taught as a fact, this is not a problem. And since its a fact that evolution occurs, teaching the factual nature of evolution is not a problem then either.

If its not, then it should not have any more right to the spot light then anything else.

Its not a spotlight, its a science class. Teach science in it. Evolution is the best scientific theory that is had on the subject. Creationism is not a science, it has no theories

black jackal
3 unprovable and questionable assumptions

But we have shown that those assumptions are infact quite reasonable. True, they can't account for a universe designed by god to have the appearance of old age, but that is in actuality young, but, then again, nothing can account for that. Short of being 'more powerful than god', thats pretty darned good.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by jake1997
You know that this stuff is taught as fact when it is at best, and idea.
There is no need to disprove a thing that has not, and can not, be proven.

Its not taught as fact, its clearly taught as an extremely well supported theory. Theories can't be proven, but evolution is as much a 'fact' as 'electricity' is.

That could easily be made out to be darwinists.

Thing is, if one did make it out like that, one would be wrong. Evolution is science, science is, definitionally, objective knowledge. Religion is precisely the opposite.

The creationist view is, If its going to be taught as truth or fact, then make sure thats what it is.

Since the theory of evolution is not taught as a fact, this is not a problem. And since its a fact that evolution occurs, teaching the factual nature of evolution is not a problem then either.

If its not, then it should not have any more right to the spot light then anything else.

Its not a spotlight, its a science class. Teach science in it. Evolution is the best scientific theory that is had on the subject. Creationism is not a science, it has no theories

black jackal
3 unprovable and questionable assumptions

But we have shown that those assumptions are infact quite reasonable. True, they can't account for a universe designed by god to have the appearance of old age, but that is in actuality young, but, then again, nothing can account for that. Short of being 'more powerful than god', thats pretty darned good.

You can tell yourself that its not taught as fact if you want, but when you open a school text book, you will be denied.
This is why that case in GA happened if I remember right. They put stickers inside the books that state evolution is a theory and the neo-darwinists went to court to get them removed. The books taught it all as fact.

Anyway, thats a different subject.

You state that its science based on assumption. Religion is also based on assumption.
This is why many classify evolution as a religion.