Tossing out the question to one and all:
Do you believe in a young Earth (thousands of years) or an old Earth (billions of years)?
What evidence can you cite that supports your belief?
Young Earth?
(107 posts) (19 voices)-
Before Godislove brings his "carbon dating is bogus!" bullshit to this thread, over to an actual scientific literate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY
This is compulsory viewing for Creationists who use that stupid argument.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorFrom prior thread:
Radio-carbon dating, which you base your beliefs on, is not proven by science...
Er, radiocarbon dating (and other radiometric dating techniques) are some of the most reliable and widely used scientific tools used in geology and paleontology, as the principles it relies on are very well understood. Interestingly, of course, Custador's (and other's) beliefs about the age of the Earth are substantiated by other radiometric techniques, since Carbon-14's half-life is too short to pinpoint ages past about 57,000 years. For rock dating in the oldest strata, the Uranium-Lead decay method is the most useful.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Over to Potholer54 again:
Posted 1 year ago # -
UrsaMinor
MemberAs I stated on the other thread, carbon-14 dating is not relevant to determining the age of the planet. It has a half-life of only 5730 years. At best, you can go back a few tens of thousands of years with it (and then only if you understand the variations in its rate of production in the atmosphere over the past 30,000 years or so, and how it is distributed in the biosphere).
You need a longer-lived isotope that is not continuously produced in the atmosphere to date the planet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I would argue that carbon dating is relevant to this discussion since most young Earthers claim that the Earth is 6000 years old: If you can date something to approximately 60,000 years, you've already demonstrated they're wrong by a factor of ten. How you get to the right age is a different issue, and one covered in the second video I posted.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Godislove
MemberHi. Continuing this thread... Researchers applied posterior reasoning to the radiocarbon dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Since you left the citation mark in there - [10] - proving you just copied that from AIG, I'd like to see the title of the paper it's citing, please. I happen to have an Athens log-in, so it's no big problem for me to pull it down and read it for myself.
Now go and watch the videos and educate yourself, of don't and keep spouting stupidity from AIG. Your choice.
And to answer your second post: Radiometric dating goes back a lot further than that. It just doesn't use Carbon.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Godislove
MemberUrsa I agree with you that "carbon-14 dating is not relevant to determining the age of the planet. It has a half-life of only 5730 years. At best, you can go back a few tens of thousands of years with it (and then only if you understand the variations in its rate of production in the atmosphere over the past 30,000 years or so, and how it is distributed in the biosphere)."
I am trying to show Custador that without using logic to back up his arguments, he should not speak, especially in a slanderous manner.
Posted 1 year ago # -
UrsaMinor
MemberTo repeat: radiocarbon dating is not relevant to establishing the age of the planet. It does not have a long enough half-life, and scientists do not use it as evidence for the age of the planet. At best, it can go back about 45,000 years.
Godislove, what is the original reference for your citation? I find it suspicious that any scientific paper would talk about radiocarbon dating for multi-million-year-old samples. It cannot be used that way.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Logic?! From somebody who quotes AIG because he's a scientific illiterate posting about something he knows nothing about?! LOL!
Don't you even get that you're arguing about radiocarbon dating fossils? FOSSILS HAVE NO CARBON IN THEM! You can't carbon date a chunk of mineral rock, you moron!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Godislove
MemberWhat about when you posted "Please do not for a second think you're going to bring pseudo-science here to support your position and not get roundly bitch-slapped for it. That's fair warning before you even try."
You're giving up so soon?
The TRUTH is out there!
Here is the citation you requested: G. WoldeGabriel et al., “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature, 1994, 371:330-333.Posted 1 year ago # -
Godislove
MemberPertaining to my envisioning any evidence that would help me change my mind... Of course! We'll see what science unveils next!
Now, do you apologize for the name-calling? You should know for the future that name-calling discredits your standing as a rational person.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Godislove
MemberUrsa, I am in NO WAY saying the argument is invalid due to rudeness. I did not say that. Re-read please. I am saying that name-calling discredits someone's position as a rationalist. That is debate team lesson #1 from high school.
Pertaining to your question "What sort of evidence would convince you to change your position? Give one concrete example."
As the future scientific evidence has not been unveiled yet, how, pray tell, could one give a concrete example? That makes no sense.Posted 1 year ago # -
UrsaMinor
MemberGodislove, please don't attempt to deflect.
I'll give you a counterexample. I believe there is no evidence for the Christian God. What would it take to get me to believe?
One concrete example: If a Christian were to stand over a badly decomposed dead body in my presence and pray to Jesus, and that body were to heal and the person were to come back to life, I would unquestionably believe in the Christian God.
Your turn, or our discussion is over. You're not really open to changing your mind if you can't cite something that would convince you.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Godislove
MemberI believe this thread is a publicly available version of the paper:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/010712/010712-14.htmlPosted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.