How old is the world according to Theologists?

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Entity
Flyer: you've made your side (regarding lineage) clear, and I can understand, though I don't agree, with that. Regardless, you mentioned earlier that there were scientists who had explained artifacts such as the Grand Canyon, and explained them in such a way that their existence was not incongruous with the 6,000 year estimate. If you can point me to their essays, I'd be appreciative.

Rob

I believe that was hotchic, actually...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Entity
Flyer: you've made your side (regarding lineage) clear, and I can understand, though I don't necessarily agree. Regardless, you mentioned earlier that there were scientists who had explained artifacts such as the Grand Canyon, and explained them in such a way that their existence was not incongruous with the 6,000 year estimate. If you can point me to their essays, I'd be appreciative.

Rob

He probably means stuff like this:

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/grandcanyon.htm

Pretty hilarious stuff there!

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Entity
Flyer: you've made your side (regarding lineage) clear, and I can understand, though I don't necessarily agree. Regardless, you mentioned earlier that there were scientists who had explained artifacts such as the Grand Canyon, and explained them in such a way that their existence was not incongruous with the 6,000 year estimate. If you can point me to their essays, I'd be appreciative.

Rob

He probably means stuff like this:

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/grandcanyon.htm

Pretty hilarious stuff there!

I don't see any humor in that... Pretty logical IMNSHO.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Entity
Flyer: you've made your side (regarding lineage) clear, and I can understand, though I don't necessarily agree. Regardless, you mentioned earlier that there were scientists who had explained artifacts such as the Grand Canyon, and explained them in such a way that their existence was not incongruous with the 6,000 year estimate. If you can point me to their essays, I'd be appreciative.

Rob

He probably means stuff like this:

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/grandcanyon.htm

Pretty hilarious stuff there!

I don't see any humor in that... Pretty logical IMNSHO.

Oh?

These dates don't mesh perfectly with Biblical chronology, since the geologists place the catastrophe at about 5 million years ago. Further, they do not hypothesize a world-wide flood, but an extremely large but local one. Nonetheless, they are moving toward a more Biblically-oriented scenario for the formation of the Grand Canyon[

Nice way to jump to a conclusion to fit one's agenda. How the hell does that mean scientists are moving to a "Biblically-oriented scenario"??

 

[Yossarian]

I can't believe people still fall for Flyermax2k3's trolling. Especially after adding "I'm not really a religious zealot, I just play one on ATOT" to his sig, I think he's completely full of sh!t and doesn't even believe what he's shovelling himself. He just likes to get people worked up.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Entity
Flyer: you've made your side (regarding lineage) clear, and I can understand, though I don't agree, with that. Regardless, you mentioned earlier that there were scientists who had explained artifacts such as the Grand Canyon, and explained them in such a way that their existence was not incongruous with the 6,000 year estimate. If you can point me to their essays, I'd be appreciative.

Rob

I believe that was hotchic, actually...

Rob, I found that few scientific journals are available online without subscriptions but if you're interested in some names to look up (though I do realize you were simply challenging for facts) this might be a decent place to start.

Synopsis of presentations

As is typical, there are articles espousing a viewpoint on the website, so those are inevitably going to biased and coming from a pre-supposed viewpoint. The same would hold for an evolutionary website. The scientific studies themselves, not available online, have a more just-the-facts perspective, in the format of all scientific studies.

I take it back: here are some of the studies.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I can't believe people still fall for Flyermax2k3's trolling. Especially after adding "I'm not really a religious zealot, I just play one on ATOT" to his sig, I think he's completely full of sh!t and doesn't even believe what he's shovelling himself. He just likes to get people worked up.

You're not the first person to mention this, and this isn't the first time I've explained this: if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? I mean everything I say but that doesn't mean I don't find my own zealotry amusing.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I can't believe people still fall for Flyermax2k3's trolling. Especially after adding "I'm not really a religious zealot, I just play one on ATOT" to his sig, I think he's completely full of sh!t and doesn't even believe what he's shovelling himself. He just likes to get people worked up.

Were still brushing up on or geology proving him wrong, so it isn't totally fruitless. Sort of like a game, when he says something like "all opinions are equal" or "the evidence is inconclusive" and signs off we win.

I think he's at least making some of this stuff up because he has a severe need for attention. Maybe he's making it all up, I like argueing science this is the only place I can do it outside of class.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I can't believe people still fall for Flyermax2k3's trolling. Especially after adding "I'm not really a religious zealot, I just play one on ATOT" to his sig, I think he's completely full of sh!t and doesn't even believe what he's shovelling himself. He just likes to get people worked up.

Were still brushing up on or geology proving him wrong, so it isn't totally fruitless. Sort of like a game, when he says something like "all opinions are equal" or "the evidence is inconclusive" and signs off we win.

I think he's at least making some of this stuff up because he has a severe need for attention. Maybe he's making it all up, I like argueing science this is the only place I can do it outside of class.

I like how he so easily retreats from an argument he's clearly losing or resorts to saying, "Look in the bible." Sorry, the Bible is not a valid source for scientific conclusions.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I can't believe people still fall for Flyermax2k3's trolling. Especially after adding "I'm not really a religious zealot, I just play one on ATOT" to his sig, I think he's completely full of sh!t and doesn't even believe what he's shovelling himself. He just likes to get people worked up.

Were still brushing up on or geology proving him wrong, so it isn't totally fruitless. Sort of like a game, when he says something like "all opinions are equal" or "the evidence is inconclusive" and signs off we win.

I think he's at least making some of this stuff up because he has a severe need for attention. Maybe he's making it all up, I like argueing science this is the only place I can do it outside of class.

What are you majoring in?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I can't believe people still fall for Flyermax2k3's trolling. Especially after adding "I'm not really a religious zealot, I just play one on ATOT" to his sig, I think he's completely full of sh!t and doesn't even believe what he's shovelling himself. He just likes to get people worked up.

Were still brushing up on or geology proving him wrong, so it isn't totally fruitless. Sort of like a game, when he says something like "all opinions are equal" or "the evidence is inconclusive" and signs off we win.

I think he's at least making some of this stuff up because he has a severe need for attention. Maybe he's making it all up, I like argueing science this is the only place I can do it outside of class.

I like how he so easily retreats from an argument he's clearly losing or resorts to saying, "Look in the bible." Sorry, the Bible is not a valid source for scientific conclusions.

I like how my fan club can't stop talking about me. Get over me already. If you don't like me, don't read what I have to say. Talking about me constantly certainly doesn't demonstrate how little you care for me or my opinion.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I can't believe people still fall for Flyermax2k3's trolling. Especially after adding "I'm not really a religious zealot, I just play one on ATOT" to his sig, I think he's completely full of sh!t and doesn't even believe what he's shovelling himself. He just likes to get people worked up.

Were still brushing up on or geology proving him wrong, so it isn't totally fruitless. Sort of like a game, when he says something like "all opinions are equal" or "the evidence is inconclusive" and signs off we win.

I think he's at least making some of this stuff up because he has a severe need for attention. Maybe he's making it all up, I like argueing science this is the only place I can do it outside of class.

What are you majoring in?

Meteorology with a minor in math, freshman. I go to Valporasio. Single j/k

 

[conjur]

http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

It is very difficult to date the age of the earth with carbon-14, 5770 year half-life that is why it has never been used to date the age of earth. Uranium-238 4.5 billion year half-life or several other heavy elements work just fine.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

Carbon dating isn't accurate, that's just the problem. There have been experiments done on objects which the age is known and carbon dating shows it to be vastly older than it truly is. What do you have to say to that?

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: 911paramedic

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3"Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion."

If anybody thinks the earth is only ~8K years old they've been lied to.

You're right, it isn't 8,000 years old, it's closer to 6,000.

....

There's that 6000 year figure again, gee, there couldn't possibly be any relevance to that

[/quote]

It's actually 5770 I rounded up. This is something that is EASILY and very ACURATELY measured by the amount of the element that carbon-14 decays into measured in the sample.[/quote]

You were owned for THAT stupid comment. Even if the half life of the element was exactly your proposed date... WHAT RELEVANCE WOULD THAT HAVE?

You are obviously trying to force things to confer to your beliefs and unfortunately for you one of the first thing scientists learn is not to do this (I wish you had).

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light and there are objects that are far more than 12,000 light years away (near the theoretical maximum for your theory on the universe and earths creation).

Get a clue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

Carbon dating isn't accurate, that's just the problem. There have been experiments done on objects which the age is known and carbon dating shows it to be vastly older than it truly is. What do you have to say to that?

Jesus Christ, man.

I bet you didn't even READ that article:

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 10,000 years

Items less than 50,000 years old are the target of carbon dating. Items have been found to be more than 6,000 years old. Hence, your belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old is invalidated.

In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider such misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for they themselves to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

Carbon dating isn't accurate, that's just the problem. There have been experiments done on objects which the age is known and carbon dating shows it to be vastly older than it truly is. What do you have to say to that?

I love the way no matter how many times people have stated that C-14 dating isnt used to measure the Earth's age you go ahead and say that is the problem. You are a riot. In the article it also talks about trees that are 10,000 years old (you can tell by the rings inside of them). Thats 4000 years longer thatn the earth has existed right

 

[yllus]

HotChic, after a cursory look at a bunch of the material out there including the things you've linked, all I've seen is light hypothesis. Light meaning some supposition about how the world could possibly have been terraformed (including the GC), but not a word to disprove modern attempts at dating the Earth. Anyone care to present information disproving dating methods, instead of "instead of a couple billions years, maybe a really big hurricane did this and this..."?

It's minimally useful to keep geologists on their toes so I have no major issue with Creationist science. However the evidence is still hugely in favour of the billion plus year figure.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: 911paramedic

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3"Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion."

If anybody thinks the earth is only ~8K years old they've been lied to.

You're right, it isn't 8,000 years old, it's closer to 6,000.

....

There's that 6000 year figure again, gee, there couldn't possibly be any relevance to that

It's actually 5770 I rounded up. This is something that is EASILY and very ACURATELY measured by the amount of the element that carbon-14 decays into measured in the sample.[/quote]

You were owned for THAT stupid comment. Even if the half life of the element was exactly your proposed date... WHAT RELEVANCE WOULD THAT HAVE?

You are obviously trying to force things to confer to your beliefs and unfortunately for you one of the first thing scientists learn is not to do this (I wish you had).

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light and there are objects that are far more than 12,000 light years away (near the theoretical maximum for your theory on the universe and earths creation).

Get a clue.[/quote]

Is there anyone on this board capable of rebutting a comment without insulting said person at every opportunity? And you people call me a troll... The worst thing I call you is pagans and that's because you are (by the very definition of pagan).
There are only 2 possible rebuttals to your statements regarding the age of the earth and they are:
1) G-d made the universe to appear older than it is (as stated in the Bible)
2) The Bible isn't literal, and the age of the universe is not 6,000 years

I choose option 1.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

Carbon dating isn't accurate, that's just the problem. There have been experiments done on objects which the age is known and carbon dating shows it to be vastly older than it truly is. What do you have to say to that?

Jesus Christ, man.

I bet you didn't even READ that article:

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 10,000 years

Items less than 50,000 years old are the target of carbon dating. Items have been found to be more than 6,000 years old. Hence, your belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old is invalidated.

In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider such misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for they themselves to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method.

Talk about avoiding the issue... Why can't you rebut what I said about glaring inaccuracies with carbon dating involving objects of a known age?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

Carbon dating isn't accurate, that's just the problem. There have been experiments done on objects which the age is known and carbon dating shows it to be vastly older than it truly is. What do you have to say to that?

I love the way no matter how many times people have stated that C-14 dating isnt used to measure the Earth's age you go ahead and say that is the problem. You are a riot. In the article it also talks about trees that are 10,000 years old (you can tell by the rings inside of them). Thats 4000 years longer thatn the earth has existed right

More info on the accuracy of carbon dating and reasons why it can fail:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/carbon.html#noway

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: yllus
HotChic, after a cursory look at a bunch of the material out there including the things you've linked, all I've seen is light hypothesis. Light meaning some supposition about how the world could possibly have been terraformed (including the GC), but not a word to disprove modern attempts at dating the Earth. Anyone care to present information disproving dating methods, instead of "instead of a couple billions years, maybe a really big hurricane did this and this..."?

It's minimally useful to keep geologists on their toes so I have no major issue with Creationist science. However the evidence is still hugely in favour of the billion plus year figure.

They're not working on disproving other theories - that makes them invalid? They're in various stages of researching their own branch of theories. Creationism isn't necessarily occupied in arguing with evolution any more than evolution theory is solely about disproving creation.

Anyway, I was just providing the link at request.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: 911paramedic

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3"Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion."

If anybody thinks the earth is only ~8K years old they've been lied to.

You're right, it isn't 8,000 years old, it's closer to 6,000.

....

There's that 6000 year figure again, gee, there couldn't possibly be any relevance to that

It's actually 5770 I rounded up. This is something that is EASILY and very ACURATELY measured by the amount of the element that carbon-14 decays into measured in the sample.

You were owned for THAT stupid comment. Even if the half life of the element was exactly your proposed date... WHAT RELEVANCE WOULD THAT HAVE?

You are obviously trying to force things to confer to your beliefs and unfortunately for you one of the first thing scientists learn is not to do this (I wish you had).

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light and there are objects that are far more than 12,000 light years away (near the theoretical maximum for your theory on the universe and earths creation).

Get a clue.[/quote]

Is there anyone on this board capable of rebutting a comment without insulting said person at every opportunity? And you people call me a troll... The worst thing I call you is pagans and that's because you are (by the very definition of pagan).
There are only 2 possible rebuttals to your statements regarding the age of the earth and they are:
1) G-d made the universe to appear older than it is (as stated in the Bible)
2) The Bible isn't literal, and the age of the universe is not 6,000 years

I choose option 1.[/quote]
Can you answer anything without resorting to "the bible says so" or "God did it that way"?

I'm sorry, but those calling you a troll are correct. You just keep fanning the flames without actually fielding a question put your way. That's pretty much the definition of "trolling".

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results

Carbon dating isn't accurate, that's just the problem. There have been experiments done on objects which the age is known and carbon dating shows it to be vastly older than it truly is. What do you have to say to that?

I love the way no matter how many times people have stated that C-14 dating isnt used to measure the Earth's age you go ahead and say that is the problem. You are a riot. In the article it also talks about trees that are 10,000 years old (you can tell by the rings inside of them). Thats 4000 years longer thatn the earth has existed right

More info on the accuracy of carbon dating and reasons why it can fail:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/carbon.html#noway

So basically, nothing can be carbon dated because it's too inaccurate? Thank you!