the earth

I have advanced several indicators that the Earth is billions of years old. Radiocarbon dating, for one. Then there's the stratification of the sedimentary rock. There's core samplings of ice and lakebed's. Rings in tree's - including fossilised trees.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/contents.html

Now, I'll grant you that we're only within a couple of percent of the true and accurate ages of these oldest rocks, and I'll grant you that so far all we're able to do is fix a lower limit for the age of the Earth, but I have to say that 6,000 years is looking almost as unlikely as 6 years.
 
From Article 3: "Not surprisingly, the primary road map for Middle East archaeologists has always been the Genesis account, as it has never shown inaccuracy."

I'd like to know what the basis is for this accuracy.
 
Why is Bible science not Biblical?

And carbon dating.. a freshly killed seal was predicted to be dead for thousands of years... Hawaiian 200 yr. old rocks were predicted to be 22 million yrs. old... why is it, supposedly, only workable on "old stuff"?
 
Eon said:
This article seeks to prove that a literal interpretation of Genesis reveals Bible Science to be neither Biblical or Scientific.
Click to expand...
Article said:
Most analysts outside the movement would readily concur that Creation Science is not genuine science but a deceptive facsimile which easily misleads people who have only a lay knowledge of science...

...Preston Cloud has noted: "Fundamentalist creationism is not a science but a form of antiscience, whose more vocal practitioners, despite their master's and doctoral degrees in the sciences, play fast and loose with the facts of geology and biology"
Click to expand...
Make a claim and then follow up with an authority appeal?
Article said:
In a sense, it is more critical inasmuch as the motivations for creationism are basically religious, not scientific.
Click to expand...
I got to about page 5 and all I saw was unbacked opinion. Basically it reads like a bitter guy naming things whatever he wants to call em. The sense of bitterness came from bad unexplained analogies such as:
Article said:
marshalling their own evidence in support of creationism are reminiscent of tobacco company scientists arguing that no direct correlation between smoking and lung cancer have been decisively proven.

Exceptionally determined people, it seems, like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, are capable of believing as many as three impossible things before breakfast!
Click to expand...

If you read any good points in this article could you please point them out? After reading through a third of it, I grow tired of opinionated labling.
 
This is caused by the well known "reservoir effect." These particular seals fed "...off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom [of the ocean] for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank...Thus the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere." Its C-14 would have decayed significantly. The plants picked up this "old" carbon; animals eat the plants and pick up "old" carbon; the seals eat the animals and incorporate this "old" carbon in themselves. The seal is killed. The sample taken for C-14 measurement contains partly "old" carbon and partly recent carbon. The instrument reads an apparent year that the seal died, which is older than the actual year.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend. Nobody pretends that C-14 dating is the be all and end all and provides only correct answers. Radiometric dating generally tracks a number of isotopes for that reason. In addition scientists look for some historical context to the sample.

A scientific conclusion to the age of something generally includes data from a variety of disciplines working together. That is the nature of science. The reason for this is because if you place your faith in any one thing alone without corroboration you tend to find yourself getting stupid and impossible answers, and being forced to defend them lest your entire world view collapse around your ears.

Stupid answers such as the world being 6,000 years old.
 
ChickenSoup said:
Why is Bible science not Biblical?

And carbon dating.. a freshly killed seal was predicted to be dead for thousands of years... Hawaiian 200 yr. old rocks were predicted to be 22 million yrs. old... why is it, supposedly, only workable on "old stuff"?
Click to expand...

What do you consider "bible science"

Can you cite sources for those dating problems? I'd like to review them.

Carbon dating isn't a catch all kind of thing, it doesn't work in every situation.

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.

The third kind are dates which were measured before the 1970's. In the 70's:

much better measurement equipment was introduced.
the tree-ring calibration eliminated the assumption about the Sun being constant.
procedures for avoiding and recognizing contamination were established.
In short, all carbon datings published in the 1950's and 1960's are suspect.
Click to expand...

That might help.
 
Eon said:
Stupid answers such as the world being 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...
I thought you were above that...
This is a discussion, not a turn your nose down on people
Carbon dating isn't a catch all kind of thing, it doesn't work in every situation.
Click to expand...
Like if there was an industrial revolution or more volcanic activity in a certain year?
 
Mmmmm.... Sciency goodness.

Unfortunately I don't have time to do the reading to get the background I need to debate / understand that as fully as I'd like.

I'll wait until educated men from both sides start generalising in a manner which I understand.
 
Forgot about this post of mine

Eon said:
Actually, a person who'd seen it all would merely be anecdotal evidence, and wouldn't be that compelling.
Click to expand...

Are you of the position that first hand eye witness evidence is of no use other then un-compelling, anecdotal evidence?
 
I woudln't say NO use, but what context are we talking about?

Keep in mind that by it's very definition, anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid.
 
Earth ah where would you be without it.wOOt me with the lord hehehe.Secular humanism revolves around the belief man is right hahahaha OOOOK....Almost everything that man has put a time or date to is based on carbon data aka decay. man made decay, a guess or fact? oh my tough to bet your life on man's wisdom.Y battle over history when its just that wOOt I grow tomatoes in dino poo thats mixed with peat.mmmgood
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top