The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by primoaurelius

 

>sorry Christians, but you cant be right EVERY time.

Hmm...

You seem hung up on 'proof'.

That is an interesting approach...

Where to begin... How about the 'beginning'?

'Science' has one of those 'beginning' thingies. Some people call it the 'Big Bang' theory.

You obviously sound like you know a LOT... Maybe you could share with us YOUR proof.

You do understand that once you scratch off the marketing glossy...

'Big Bang' comes down to SOMETHING was created out of NOTHING?

Let me show you the equation:

0 = 1

Am I talking too fast?

i can see how you could think that. im not worried about proof, but rather there is a very large volume of growing evidence that contradicts fundamentalists views . also by no means do i not belive in god, just not a christian world view. and if you would like proof, i could argue for both sides, both sides, religion, and science, both have lessons to be learned, to say that one is 100% fact correct, is close minded and will inevitably lead to an incorrect assumption.

as for the big bang, to say that something was created from nothing is an incredible understatement. if you would really like for me to sit here and type out different scientific theories i certainly can; the universe in super position with itself, because "before" the big bang the universe was as small or smaller than a single atom, and atoms, unobserved, are in superposition with themselves, and while in superposition, it reached a certain threshold and became instantly came into being. blah blah, thats one scientific theory.
then i could argue for spirituality and say that the universe could not have come out of superposition unless it was observed by something, even itself, it became aware of itself, and instantly became the primordial universe.
i could continue on and on but i would rather not.

the point is no one has all the right answers and to believe otherwise is folly.

my original post was that the guy was saying that someone was flat out wrong, without stating how or why. much like you did.

am i talking to fast?

reply to post by simonsayz


I understand.

All you have is corporate lobby foundations with varried ideas on how to eliminate "undesirable" people.

The athiests compassion is DEATH of 90% of the Earth's population.

Originally posted by romanmel
reply to post by simonsayz

 

The athiests compassion is DEATH of 90% of the Earth's population.

which would probably end with spiritual repercussions lol

Originally posted by timepolarity
My point is not that this shows some change in decay rate, but it does show that decay rate CAN be altered by external factors. What if the same force that causes this cyclical change occurred in a non-cyclical way at some point in the past? How can you say that it hasn't?

We have no evidence that says alterations in decay rate occurred in a non-cyclic way in the past. In fact, we have evidence to the opposite. We can measure the wavelength of emissions from supernovae that occurred billions of years in the past and the decay rates for those emissions agree with current terrestrial decay rates.

For radioactive decay to be reliable, it has to be an isolated process, one that cannot be changed by something outside it.

No, the source and magnitude of those external pressures simply needs to be known and their effects need to be understood relative to the values we can measure. I'm all for more accurate dating methods, but errors of less than 1% introduced in a cyclic fashion just don't make much of a difference when you're measuring things in the range of hundreds of millions of billions of years.

Since we know that's not true anymore, we can't be certain of the process's history. We can't extrapolate backward with certainty anymore.

The single source of variation we've found to date being small relative to the measured values coupled with the ability to confirm decay rates via non-terrestrial sources says otherwise. What's really interesting about solar cycles having an effect on decay rates is that it actually help explain discrepancies in decay rates found by different research teams. If anything, it's helping the methodology gain a greater degree of accuracy, not calling the whole process into question.

Again, this has been beaten to death on these boards already.

4.54 billion years old is our Earth ok so the Earth is older than man .. in fact they claim the big bang created all of our planets at one time.. this sounds to me as unconcievable but really I dont see how they really know thats is true.
So the reason i say this is because we have never been to any of the other planets including the moon I dont believe we ever landed pn the moon .. so with out real tests of soil or what ever it takes how can we claim the big bang created everyting all at once??

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by timepolarity
My point is not that this shows some change in decay rate, but it does show that decay rate CAN be altered by external factors. What if the same force that causes this cyclical change occurred in a non-cyclical way at some point in the past? How can you say that it hasn't?

We have no evidence that says alterations in decay rate occurred in a non-cyclic way in the past. In fact, we have evidence to the opposite. We can measure the wavelength of emissions from supernovae that occurred billions of years in the past and the decay rates for those emissions agree with current terrestrial decay rates.

I don't think you're catching my drift here. This subtle change that we've observed shines light on some previously unknown mechanism by which the radioactive decay of an atom can be altered. Let's just say this mechanism is some sort of interaction with neutrinos - how do we know that all matter on earth wasn't exposed to some absurdly massive bombardment of neutrinos at some point in the past? Looking at the decay rate from a distant supernova tells you nothing about this. You can't prove that it happened, but you can't prove that it didn't, either.

reply to post by LosLobos


Who said we know nothing about it? We know a few things about it and dark energy. Now, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I'm sure if you ask one they can explain it all. I'm not going to pretend to know everything, but I'm explaining things to the best of my knowledge.

Originally posted by timepolarity
I don't think you're catching my drift here. This subtle change that we've observed shines light on some

I'm following you perfectly I think. I don't like putting absolutes on anything. Scientists say the universe is full of interplanetary dust and gas. What's to say some supernovae (or all) aren't going through different levels of interplanetary muck? That would change the emission lines of the spectrograph.

Our current understanding of decay rates are based on our Sun. We know our Sun goes through an 11 year cycle of maximums and minimums. So the decay rate would need to be based on the average. Yet we know these maximums and minimums can't be averaged because we just don't know what it was doing a billion years ago. Or 5 billilon years ago. Or 2 thousand years ago.

We don't even truly know if the 11 year cylce is accurate. It could be one cycle in many cycles. Maybe this million years its on an 11 year cycle. Maybe a billion years ago it was on a 100 year cycle. We are too young a species to even know how constant and predictable the Sun truly is.

Wow, 13 pages of slagging matches; I haven't got the time to read every page, although I'd love to. Here's a video that explains the age of the earth and several methods that we use to calculate its age, presented in an easy to watch format

reply to post by romanmel

Originally posted by romanmel
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You have no time to help the poor?

Well, I left home at 8am, got home at 10 pm...no, not really.

It is my observation that most all athiests never do anything with compassion to their fellow man.

Well, you're wrong there. I do try my best to help people when I can. Unfortunately, there aren't many opportunities around where I live and I have no time to organize any. I am helping an NGO that promotes and facilitates dealing with mental health issues at the moment, and I try to donate what little money I can spare to charities which support education in the third world.

They are angry and self centered and proud

I'm not angry, I'm hardly self-centered, and I'm not all that proud. I'm a student, I've done little with my life but hopefully enrich the lives of those I've encountered.

Without religious people, there would be little charity in the world.

Bill Gates would disagree with you. You know, the world's most generous philanthropist. So would Warren Buffet...number two on that list.

How many soup kitchens, clothing banks and homeless shelters can you number that athiests have started?

I don't know. They don't tend to keep count. I know that one atheist is busy trying to stamp out the last bits of polio. Again, Bill Gates.

Unless you have hard numbers, speculation is useless.

Oh yeah, you are too busy "educating"..

You know, if we actually had some education, if we threw off the shackles of superstitions that inhibit science (I'm not saying religion, I'm saying ideas like "the Earth is 6000 years old"), we could actually make progress.

Oh, and I've volunteered in soup kitchens before...well, not soup kitchens, it was more like a homeless shelter that fed people. Soup wasn't involved.

Of course, you'd rather just launch an outright personal attack instead of addressing the issue, right?

reply to post by LosLobos


...he wasn't a strong atheist, he was a weak atheist...and this thread isn't about atheism, it's about the age of the Earth. Darwin did not believe in any deity.

reply to post by Darkrunner


I don't know why you need to be dismissive, clearly this thread got so long because there are people who actually happen to disagree.

reply to post by timepolarity


The fact that we can use radiometric dating against samples of known age and get consistent results sort of demolishes the idea that there is an issue.

reply to post by LosLobos


Wow, you're still harping on the point I demolished? Last I checked, germs, cells, circuits, evolution, gravity, etc are all relatively unchanged. Hell, relativity is relatively unchanged. Contradicting itself every 10 years? Please, provide evidence.

reply to post by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You think that we've verified Einstein's ideas and you say I'M ignorant of the science. You are a fool.

I'm going to stop here to just point out that we have. Have you ever used a GPS? I'm not a fool, you just like to insult people.

Tell me how we've verified time dilation? please? I'm all ears, show me the science, because I can guarantee you that based on the empirical results of any experiment done that you would say validates it, I can give you an alternate explanation of the evidence that is just as much if not more plausible...

GPS satellites, every single day. We have to adjust them to account for relativistic differences in their internal clocks vs our Earthly clocks based entirely on what we have derived from Einstein. We can measure the amount of change and compensate for it immediately.

So...thousands of empiricial data points for you to eat.

reply to post by simonsayz


rapid burial? are you saying that the fossils are somehow perfectly form to make a bunch of these dinosaurs?

Yes the dinosaurs which were called dragons just about 180 years ago were fossilized by rapid burial, just as the coal fields were the product of all the vegetation that was on the planet at the time.

reply to post by romanmel


reply to post by romanmel


No, it isn't. But you're the sort of person that doesn't understand how vaccines or toxicity concentrations work. You do realize that the whole 'anti-vac' thing was knocked out of the park by skeptics ages ago, right?

Do you know what atheist compassion is? It varies. Atheists aren't a homogeneous group by any stretch of the imagination. Some atheists are practically saints, others are amongst the worst people on the planet...which basically describes most groups of people on the planet that share only a single common trait (in this case the disbelief in any deity).

Originally posted by simonsayz
christians never went to the museums.
one christian told me this before "dinosaurs' fossils are man-made"
i questioned her "so humans made them and put them there just to be re-dug?"
her answer "yes"

this just shows how stupid she is

@madnessinmysoul,

i know you want to keep saying people aren't stupid, but they are wrong

the stupid part about it is that they don't want to learn which is why we call them stupid
they have been given education and this advanced time yet they dismiss it.

Ignorance runs deep in some areas of the world.

I have been to many museums.

Education is not given at a public school, you never learn there you are trained to think as they do. If you truly believe that you are a subjective thinker then you would actually study the evidence from both views. I do.

It is quite easy to see that public school teaches religion in the science books in the areas of evolution and origins. I own many public science books and in those areas the words we believe, could have happened, might have been, are used quite regularly. Now to many that is a factual statement, but to some one who is educated and not trained they would understand that those are faith based statements.

So just because one is trained in governmental indoctrination centers does not mean they are educated in truth; just trained in the process of lemmings.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Please, do go on. How about you provide some evidence that confirms it? How about you demonstrate that a global flood actually happened or is physically possible?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Have YOU verified it because if you have not you are not proving empirical proof.

You are taking the word of another.

True empirical proof is when you have verified it.

Many times in science one person uses the published works of another in their quest for empirical study and later discovered that when they do the test it does not fit the published work.