How old is the world according to Theologists?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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?

I did. That second quote I listed.

Unless you give me some examples of known objects known to have failed the carbon dating method, I will consider your query as a ridiculous one.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: 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?

Where are these inaccuracies. Show me an inaccuracy please.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: 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!

Didn't read that one either did you? I'm starting to doubt you could get through the bible given the reading comprehension you've demonstrated here.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3


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.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

If it doesn't fit my belief it's because God psyched science out!

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: 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.

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".[/quote]

And you're contributing to the topic at hand how? What you say? coughTROLLcough. Every one of you that calls me a troll is a hypocrite.
Here's the problem with your little question: how can I completely ignore my deepest beliefs when discussing a subject such as this? It's not human nature. Whether you believe in science or G-d IT'S STILL A BELIEF.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur


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!

Ah...the inner essence of a troll reveals itself!

 

[StageLeft]

All I have to say is this:

1) Flyermax: God gave you a brain. Use it. And stop being embarassed to name Him.

2) It's unfortunate that so many peoples' exposure to religion is from fanatics on Anandtech - fanatics who hold a minority opinion, if one was to place them with other believers. There are those who believe in the bible and in evolution, big-bang, 4.6 billion earth etc. I've met many religious people and can never say I've once encountered one whom I know to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs didn't exist (fossils just to test our faith), and other such lunacy.

I would also recommend not trying to debate with the undebatable. Some of the so-called followers of God in my opinion do their fellow followers a diservice by blurting out their misguided ideas. Don't let the vocal minority shape your views of the majority.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: 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!

Are There Inaccurate Carbon Dates?
Yes. There are three kinds.

The first kind are datings of things that should't be carbon dated. For example, polar bears that eat seals aren't getting their carbon from an atmospheric source.

The second kind are datings on contaminated samples, or on samples which are a mixture. Old samples contain much less C14, so the measured date of older samples is strongly affected by even small amounts of contamination.

Okay so how does this affect the dating of Uranium or the Earth for that matter?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: HotChic
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.

Understood, but right now we are saying the Earth either is ~6,000 years old or a couple billion more than that. Can't be both. Everything I've seen on the side of Creationism thus far has been, "Based on some miniature observable phenomena we've seen recently, perhaps 6,000 years ago this occured instead." That seems pretty bent on disproving the billion plus year figure instead of coming up with solid numbers independently.

Perhaps first we can agree on some framework for believable proof or disproof. Since dating by elements is apparently untrustworthy, what does Creationism present as to how to arrive at its figure other than a number scrawled in a book? I reckon we can find books older than the Bible that also theorize about the age of the Earth.

What do you bring to the table other than a page from a very old book? Links to material this is discussed within? Anything?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

ok, there's no way in hell I'm going to answer 7 posts at once. I'm not going to sit here for hours and debate against 4 of you. You all question my motives and my intelligence but I don't see a single one of you in my position doing the same thing.
Let me sum everything up for you: my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you move to a country that does not permit freedom of beliefs or freedom of expression.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: 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.

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.

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".[/quote]

And you're contributing to the topic at hand how? What you say? coughTROLLcough. Every one of you that calls me a troll is a hypocrite.
Here's the problem with your little question: how can I completely ignore my deepest beliefs when discussing a subject such as this? It's not human nature. Whether you believe in science or G-d IT'S STILL A BELIEF.[/quote]
Well....let's see. Roughly a dozen persons (myself included) have asked you questions. You have failed to answer them other than the aburd responses I mentioned. So now I'm just wanting to know what you're really on about here. Surely one so devout as yourself could easily dismiss the inquiries of us "god-haters" right? So start answering some questions or just shut it.

And calling science and religion the same kind of belief is just ridiculous. At one point, the earth was believed flat because we just didn't know better. Later, we orbited the earth in space....we're pretty sure it's round now. Science moves forward and corrects itself as it goes. Religion just rehashes the same things and thinks up new ways to "disprove" the latest science. People like you missed your true calling as criminal defense lawyers.

 

[yllus]

On a side note, scientists have examined Moon rocks "produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago - the presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years." Does Creationism tie in a Moon hoax conspiracy theory into the mix as well?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
ok, there's no way in hell I'm going to answer 7 posts at once. I'm not going to sit here for hours and debate against 4 of you. You all question my motives and my intelligence but I don't see a single one of you in my position doing the same thing.
Let me sum everything up for you: my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you move to a country that does not permit freedom of beliefs or freedom of expression.

Oh that's priceless. Now we're impinging on your freedom of religion.

Come on...pick one question and answer it. Just one. Show us up.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
ok, there's no way in hell I'm going to answer 7 posts at once. I'm not going to sit here for hours and debate against 4 of you. You all question my motives and my intelligence but I don't see a single one of you in my position doing the same thing.
Let me sum everything up for you: my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you move to a country that does not permit freedom of beliefs or freedom of expression.

COP OUT. You havent said a single useful thing. If you can show me that there is proof that science would be off over 4.5 Billion years. You keep saying C-14 dating is innacurate but in the article they explain the reason some dates are incorrect and the same problems wouldnt exist with Uranium.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
ok, there's no way in hell I'm going to answer 7 posts at once. I'm not going to sit here for hours and debate against 4 of you. You all question my motives and my intelligence but I don't see a single one of you in my position doing the same thing.
Let me sum everything up for you: my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you move to a country that does not permit freedom of beliefs or freedom of expression.

Just trying to educate you. There were once people who KNEW the earth was flat, eh?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Fausto


Well....let's see. Roughly a dozen persons (myself included) have asked you questions. You have failed to answer them other than the aburd responses I mentioned. So now I'm just wanting to know what you're really on about here. Surely one so devout as yourself could easily dismiss the inquiries of us "god-haters" right? So start answering some questions or just shut it.

And calling science and religion the same kind of belief is just ridiculous. At one point, the earth was believed flat because we just didn't know better. Later, we orbited the earth in space....we're pretty sure it's round now. Science moves forward and corrects itself as it goes. Religion just rehashes the same things and thinks up new ways to "disprove" the latest science. People like you missed your true calling as criminal defense lawyers.

So let me get this straight: my beliefs are not valid because they are based on the Bible? Guess I'd better change my beliefs so they're more palatable for you Pagans then

"surely one so devout..." Oldest line in the Pagan handbook. I'm not G-d, how can I possibly have the answer for everything? Anyone who claims he can is a much bigger fool than I.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
ok, there's no way in hell I'm going to answer 7 posts at once. I'm not going to sit here for hours and debate against 4 of you. You all question my motives and my intelligence but I don't see a single one of you in my position doing the same thing.
Let me sum everything up for you: my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you move to a country that does not permit freedom of beliefs or freedom of expression.

Oh that's priceless. Now we're impinging on your freedom of religion.

Come on...pick one question and answer it. Just one. Show us up.

He can't so he's relying on his best defense. RETREAT!!

I wonder if he's French.....

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
ok, there's no way in hell I'm going to answer 7 posts at once. I'm not going to sit here for hours and debate against 4 of you. You all question my motives and my intelligence but I don't see a single one of you in my position doing the same thing.
Let me sum everything up for you: my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you move to a country that does not permit freedom of beliefs or freedom of expression.

Well it was fun, didn't mention the word "opinions" but beliefs is close enough. We all got to brush up on our radioactive dating as well.

 

[StageLeft]

my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible.

Again I'll remind people not to use Flyermax as an example of the average follower of God.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Just trying to educate you. There were once people who KNEW the earth was flat, eh?

Thanks for rehashing an argument I made earlier in this thread

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Fausto


Well....let's see. Roughly a dozen persons (myself included) have asked you questions. You have failed to answer them other than the aburd responses I mentioned. So now I'm just wanting to know what you're really on about here. Surely one so devout as yourself could easily dismiss the inquiries of us "god-haters" right? So start answering some questions or just shut it.

And calling science and religion the same kind of belief is just ridiculous. At one point, the earth was believed flat because we just didn't know better. Later, we orbited the earth in space....we're pretty sure it's round now. Science moves forward and corrects itself as it goes. Religion just rehashes the same things and thinks up new ways to "disprove" the latest science. People like you missed your true calling as criminal defense lawyers.

So let me get this straight: my beliefs are not valid because they are based on the Bible? Guess I'd better change my beliefs so they're more palatable for you Pagans then

"surely one so devout..." Oldest line in the Pagan handbook. I'm not G-d, how can I possibly have the answer for everything? Anyone who claims he can is a much bigger fool than I.

We know you don't have the answer for everything.

We just want to see your proof for your answer to ONE thing! Something that proves what the Bible says is true. You just believe in one single book and totally dismiss all of science. That's not religious or even fundamental, it's fanatical.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible.

Again I'll remind people not to use Flyermax as an example of the average follower of God.

I'll remind you the same thing myself. The "average" follower of G-d doesn't follow G-d at all. The Bible even says so.

 

[stnicralisk]

Doesnt the Bible have a guy survive in a whale stomache for days?

Flyer I would suggest you dont take everything in the book literally.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur


We know you don't have the answer for everything.

We just want to see your proof for your answer to ONE thing! Something that proves what the Bible says is true. You just believe in one single book and totally dismiss all of science. That's not religious or even fundamental, it's fanatical.

If I had proof that the Bible was true, do you think I'd be posting on ATOT? Do you think anyone here would be posting if the Bible were proven to be true?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Skoorb

my beliefs are mine and mine alone. They are based on the Bible.

Again I'll remind people not to use Flyermax as an example of the average follower of God.

I'll remind you the same thing myself. The "average" follower of G-d doesn't follow G-d at all. The Bible even says so.

Who is this Gid that you follow?