Age of the earth?

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 09:05:04 PM

I will translate what you just said to science:

There is a theory that C-14 must reach an equilibrium.  This theory has no available research, is not published or verified.  It helps support my religious beliefs so I am going to refer to it as confirmed.

Not quite.  It is not disputed that there is more carbon-14 in the atmosphere today than there was 40 years ago.  Do you dispute sunlight being the cause of carbon-14?  My signature and avatar slogan state my religious belief.  Your constant reference to it is either fear or a desperate tactic to discount the science that I have given.  In the latter case, this is simply ad hominem.  Likewise for JoshuaZ's last comment as well.   

Where was the ad hominem?

Reread my comment please. You said:

My response was to your claim that neither you nor anyone else will change their position no matter what. Please reread my comment in the context of what you said.

I don't need to re-read the post.  I've stated that carbon dating, and the many recorded flaws, do nothing for the RE position that the earth is billions of years old.  One of your fellow RE'rs produced data of the oldest living tree which fits into my hypothesis.  I will repost this:

-Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation. 

-Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  The comeback was in essence "well x y and z could have..." 

Re'rs can suppose and purpose anything, but that which can be observed always take precedence over science fiction!     

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 06:54:39 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:25:16 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:15:40 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on July 14, 2011, 06:07:20 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

Yes, thank you.  With regards to the tree, it fits within my creation view perfectly.  Coincides with the flood of Noah as well.

I think we can all agree that you have religious views which you are defending.  Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Please dont mislead other people into thinking that you are following any type of science though.  You have predetermined conclusions that you seek supporting data for.  You discount any data that doesnt fit.

Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation.  Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  Who's discounting??  Not I sir, but rather you!   

No mention of the other theories that you dismiss. 

Lets follow a line of thought, how do you know how old the coral reef is?

Also, I cant believe you threw me such a softball as mentioning half lives of isotopes.

Do we even need to discuss carbon dating?  skeletal evidence?  dinosaurs?

I have done a lot of survey work in the oil and gas industry.  There are massive reserves whose locations are easily predicted by the location of an ancient sea formed by the rocky mountains rising.  We find fossil evidence of sea life in these deposits regularily

OK.  See it's posts like this that consume my time in answering each and every point.  You bring up an interesting topic, that is carbon dating.  This method of dating has been proven over and over again to be so inaccurate that I can't understand the inclusion of it as any relevance.  Are you aware of the many proofs of its inaccuracy?  I will not assume that you are familiar with the term "half-life" because I don't want to make an ass out of U and me:  Radiation from the sun goes into the atmosphere.  The energy from this converts roughly 21lbs of nitrogen into carbon-14.  This slowly decays back into stable nitrogen.  Half of the carbon-14 molecules will decay in approx 5732 years = "Half Life."  It will go from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8...  After 5 half-lives the difference is basically immeasurable.  This is why it can only be good for objects about 40 thousand years old.  I could go on about this fact, however it does nothing for those in your position to say the earth is older than 40 thousand years old.  Because the RE position is that the earth is billion of years old, I would suggest not using it for your basis of argument.     

Quote from: JoshuaZ on July 14, 2011, 09:22:07 PM

Reread my comment please. You said:

My response was to your claim that neither you nor anyone else will change their position no matter what. Please reread my comment in the context of what you said.

I don't need to re-read the post.  I've stated that carbon dating, and the many recorded flaws, do nothing for the RE position that the earth is billions of years old.  One of your fellow RE'rs produced data of the oldest living tree which fits into my hypothesis.  I will repost this:

-Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method? I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation. 

-Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  The comeback was in essence "well x y and z could have..." 

Re'rs can suppose and purpose anything, but that which can be observed always take precedence over science fiction!   

2 quotes from the same person in the same thread

...
2 quotes from the same person in the same thread

Of course.  I am trying to bring illogical reason back to logical reason.  This, unfortunately, requires a piecemeal approach with you and your fellow RE'rs.  Step by step I try and bring you back to sanity; Starting with the inaccuracies of carbon-14 dated if need be. 

Quote from: JoshuaZ on July 14, 2011, 09:22:07 PM

Reread my comment please. You said:

My response was to your claim that neither you nor anyone else will change their position no matter what. Please reread my comment in the context of what you said.

I don't need to re-read the post.  I've stated that carbon dating, and the many recorded flaws, do nothing for the RE position that the earth is billions of years old.  One of your fellow RE'rs produced data of the oldest living tree which fits into my hypothesis.  I will repost this:

-Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation. 

-Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  The comeback was in essence "well x y and z could have..." 

Re'rs can suppose and purpose anything, but that which can be observed always take precedence over science fiction!   

Ignored by you: The Grand Canyon.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 09:59:02 PM

...
2 quotes from the same person in the same thread

Of course.  I am trying to bring illogical reason back to logical reason.  This, unfortunately, requires a piecemeal approach with you and your fellow RE'rs.  Step by step I try and bring you back to sanity; Starting with the inaccuracies of carbon-14 dated if need be.

You contradicted yourself.  You say carbon dating proves to 40,000 years.  Then you say the world is only 6,000 km old

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 09:59:02 PM

...
2 quotes from the same person in the same thread

Of course.  I am trying to bring illogical reason back to logical reason.  This, unfortunately, requires a piecemeal approach with you and your fellow RE'rs.  Step by step I try and bring you back to sanity; Starting with the inaccuracies of carbon-14 dated if need be.

God is not logical.

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 10:04:48 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 09:59:02 PM

...
2 quotes from the same person in the same thread

Of course.  I am trying to bring illogical reason back to logical reason.  This, unfortunately, requires a piecemeal approach with you and your fellow RE'rs.  Step by step I try and bring you back to sanity; Starting with the inaccuracies of carbon-14 dated if need be.

You contradicted yourself.  You say carbon dating proves to 40,000 years.  Then you say the world is only 6,000 km old

I said proves it can not be greater than (or more than) 40,000 years old.  "greater than (more than)" is not "equal to!!"

To Silyrob:  "God is not logical"  Quite the contrary.  God fits all of the observed science I have referenced.  The creation viewpoint fits your inclusion of the oldest tree.  The creation viewpoint fits the data of the Sahara desert and the oldest coral reef.  If you think about it long enough, you will realize that explanations beyond this is science fiction.  Don't you ever wonder why there is no older tree beyond the historically documented flood event?  If you are truly bipartisan with regards to the issue, you have to wonder why there are no older trees than that.  Why there are no older coral reefs.  Why there are no larger deserts.  etc. etc. etc...   

Your desert theory is wrong though. The Earth goes through lots of climate changes, so large deserts don't prove anything. A couple trees that have lives for 3 to 4,000 years? That doesn't prove a flood, that proves that there is a very rare chance that some trees can live that long. If there were more trees like that I could MAYBE see a connection, but there are so few, that the point isn't really backed. Both examples can go for coral reef. Maybe the climate didn't allow that area to have coral reef 5,000 years ago, so it started forming after. Just because science can't put a stamp on it and say, "Oh yes we did," doesn't mean you can put a stamp that says, "Damn straight it's God!"

You cannot be this dim,  I feel like I am asking our teenage daughter a question she is trying to avoid, keep skirting the issue and not admitting to what you said previously.

You have stated in this thread that some things have been carbon dated to 23,000 years old in 2 case
some to other ages,  all of which are over 6,000,

You cannot be this dim,  I feel like I am asking our teenage daughter a question she is trying to avoid, keep skirting the issue and not admitting to what you said previously.

You have stated in this thread that some things have been carbon dated to 23,000 years old in 2 case
some to other ages,  all of which are over 6,000,

Haven't you figured this out yet? Religious people don't adhere to logic, therefore if it's less than 4.5 billion, it's 6,000.

Ok. This thread has really derailed. Sillyrob and Theodolite, Chuck's argument was that the world is only 6000 years old. His comment about 40,000 is the claim that if one accepts mainstream science then you can't use c-14 dating to date something more than 60,000 years old. Then he tried to argue against the validity of c-14 dating by arguing that it dated some objects to dates that were empirically wrong (such as saying recently deceased things were tens of thousands of years old). His argument is bad, but there's no internal contradiction.

the earth is 5000 years old

however the 4 elephants and turtle that support the earth are around 4.5 billion years old.

Ok. This thread has really derailed. Sillyrob and Theodolite, Chuck's argument was that the world is only 6000 years old. His comment about 40,000 is the claim that if one accepts mainstream science then you can't use c-14 dating to date something more than 60,000 years old. Then he tried to argue against the validity of c-14 dating by arguing that it dated some objects to dates that were empirically wrong (such as saying recently deceased things were tens of thousands of years old). His argument is bad, but there's no internal contradiction.

Okay, he still hasn't explained the Grand Canyon.

Ok. This thread has really derailed. Sillyrob and Theodolite, Chuck's argument was that the world is only 6000 years old. His comment about 40,000 is the claim that if one accepts mainstream science then you can't use c-14 dating to date something more than 60,000 years old. Then he tried to argue against the validity of c-14 dating by arguing that it dated some objects to dates that were empirically wrong (such as saying recently deceased things were tens of thousands of years old). His argument is bad, but there's no internal contradiction.

Actually my comment is valid.  He is simultaneously attempting to use a source to confirm something, and also discredit the source.  This is called a paradoxical statement.  If one of the effects is true than the other is not. 

Carbon dating is a useful way to estimate the age of things that are under 40-60,000 years old.

It is not the only method used, and is by far the least accurate. 

He has stated that the earth is 4000-6000 years old, i am stating that carbon dating is useful as evidence in this age range.


The topic of how old RE is, is a seperate one, and needs to be studied in a different way.



It is very arrogant of someone to assume that their alternate theory is the only alternate theory, or the only alternate possible result.




Lets say for example someone proves that the earth isnt 4.5 billion years old, they will do this by implying it is a different age and showing their work.  It does not confirm other theories to discredit the 4.5 billion year theory.

It's about 6000-10.000 years based on holy book

Quote from: Around And About on July 09, 2011, 05:30:28 AM

Uh huh...anyway, my point was that Einstein's math was probably stronger than the OP's is.

so where does einstein derive these equations? Like i said (never was addressed)  "I'm not aware of that being part of einstein's equations... and its simple algebra.."


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dv/dt+%3D+g/(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)^3
 
Could he have been anymore off?

Please learn to use parenthesis correctly. There should be an equal amount of open and closed parenthesis.

Also, from what I remember brackets should be used to nest parenthesis within each other.

Actually my comment is valid.  He is simultaneously attempting to use a source to confirm something, and also discredit the source.  This is called a paradoxical statement.  If one of the effects is true than the other is not. 

Carbon dating is a useful way to estimate the age of things that are under 40-60,000 years old. (A)

It is not the only method used, and is by far the least accurate. 

He has stated that the earth is 4000-6000 years old, i am stating that carbon dating is useful as evidence in this age range.


The topic of how old RE is, is a seperate one, and needs to be studied in a different way.



It is very arrogant of someone to assume that their alternate theory is the only alternate theory, or the only alternate possible result.




Lets say for example someone proves that the earth isnt 4.5 billion years old, they will do this by implying it is a different age and showing their work.  It does not confirm other theories to discredit the 4.5 billion year theory.

Theodolite,  You refuse to see the bigger picture.  Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate, PERIOD.  I was demonstrating that by a methodical approach.  It's inaccurate and has been proven to be inaccurate.  When Carbon-14 disagrees with the fictitious geological column, it is thrown out completely.  The whole system used for dating is inaccurate.  They date fossils by where the fossils appear in the geological column and then date the geological column by what fossils appear in them.  Circular reasoning!  Throw in the errors of Carbon-14 and what a magnificent scientific way of dating things.  It's bogus!  Not to mention, you still have yet to address the fact that Carbon-14 hasn't reached the point of equilibrium.  This means that the Carbon-14 dating scheme is flawed yet again because it requires ignorance towards the fact that there was less carbon in the atmosphere of the past then there is in the atmosphere of today.  Simple logic shows you that if you equate less carbon in items to higher age; those items with less carbon will be given an age older then they really are.  The whole process is flawed and I've clearly demonstrated why.

Theodolite,  You refuse to see the bigger picture.  Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate, PERIOD.  I was demonstrating that by a methodical approach.  It's inaccurate and has been proven to be inaccurate.  When Carbon-14 disagrees with the fictitious geological column, it is thrown out completely.  The whole system used for dating is inaccurate.  They date fossils by where the fossils appear in the geological column and then date the geological column by what fossils appear in them.  Circular reasoning!  Throw in the errors of Carbon-14 and what a magnificent scientific way of dating things.  It's bogus!  Not to mention, you still have yet to address the fact that Carbon-14 hasn't reached the point of equilibrium.  This means that the Carbon-14 dating scheme is flawed yet again because it requires ignorance towards the fact that there was less carbon in the atmosphere of the past then there is in the atmosphere of today.  Simple logic shows you that if you equate less carbon in items to higher age; those items with less carbon will be given an age older then they really are.  The whole process is flawed and I've clearly demonstrated why.

You did NOT demonstrate C14 dating is inaccurate, period. Dating is not circular. And we DO take into account that C14 is not constant in the atmosphere over time.

Carbon-14 is not the only form of radio-active dating...

He knows this, right? How can you deny that the earth older than 6000 years old when there are numerous other forms of radiometric dating that cover wide ranges of lengths of time that agree with each other that the Earth is far older than just 6000 years.

Carbon-14 is not the only form of radio-active dating...

He knows this, right? How can you deny that the earth older than 6000 years old when there are numerous other forms of radiometric dating that cover wide ranges of lengths of time that agree with each other that the Earth is far older than just 6000 years.

This statement above is conjecture.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Excerpt Line 1:  "So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics." 
That leaves living organisms which brings us back to Carbon-14, or space science which has been proven over and over again to be disingenuous and fraudulent.  Not to mention the embarrassing fact (for them) that so much other evidence points to the 6000 year time table.     

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on July 19, 2011, 10:15:40 AM

Carbon-14 is not the only form of radio-active dating...

He knows this, right? How can you deny that the earth older than 6000 years old when there are numerous other forms of radiometric dating that cover wide ranges of lengths of time that agree with each other that the Earth is far older than just 6000 years.

This statement above is conjecture.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Excerpt Line 1:  "So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics." 
That leaves living organisms which brings us back to Carbon-14, or space science which has been proven over and over again to be disingenuous and fraudulent.  Not to mention the embarrassing fact (for them) that so much other evidence points to the 6000 year time table.     

That is quote mining. The same article states later that even though rocks have been found on all continents exceeding 3.5 billion years, there are yet to be any ones older to be found to to the reasons explained above.

It is irrelevant if there are no rocks that say the Earth is 6 billion years old. There are rocks and organisms dating older than 6000 years confirmed by several different types of radio-metric dating, so we know that the Earth cannot be 6000 years old.

Carbon-14 isn't the primary dating tool for ascertaining the age of older materials.

It's impossible to determine the exact age of the Earth, considering its destructive geologic past. We can only guess; wikipedia explains it with plenty of resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

sorry to say but Wikipedia is troll fest so much is fake
i wish i could support you  though 

sorry to say but Wikipedia is troll fest so much is fake
i wish i could support you  though 

Actually factually wikipidia is at least as accurate as encyclopedia britanica according to random verification of articles. The fact that "anyone can edit it" is simply a fallacious attack used by laymen to attack the style it is written in rather than its actual content.

EnglshGentleman is getting a taste of his own medicine.

EnglshGentleman is getting a taste of his own medicine.

Since when? 

I have posted now a total of three times in this thread. The only response to my initial post was that of a quote mining creationist. I am confused at what you mean, and suspect that you are just trying to flirt with me.

I am confused at what you mean, and suspect that you are just trying to flirt with me.

Actually, you might be on to something there!

But what I'm saying is that Chuck's ignorance for scientific evidence is repeated day in day out by a few members of this board. Don't you see it?

You parallel between FE'ers and creationists is weak at best. We are men of science!

You parallel between FE'ers and creationists is weak at best. We are men of science!

Irrelevant. Both parties that you mentioned ignore big chunks of scientific evidence. On some occasions however, they merely counter with points that have no bearing on reality whatsoever.
These are the similarities that I'm posing, and watching you argue against a creationist that uses similar techniques to FE'ers is just hilarious. The irony is incredible!

By the way, have you noticed how he just left the thread abruptly right in the middle of a debate?