Haven't you been following anything that's been said here? Or do you suffer from a memory disorder?
Can science prove how old the earth was?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
- Status
Haven't you been following anything that's been said here? Or do you suffer from a memory disorder?
about this "creationist" crap:
what if a valid premise is presented from a creationist site?
will it be disallowed because it didn't originate from a science source?
or will it be disallowed because it's "creationist"?
is that how you will label ALL dissenting evidence?
when something must be vigorously defended and cannot withstand debate then it's zealotry.
what if a valid premise is presented from a creationist site?
will it be disallowed because it didn't originate from a science source?
or will it be disallowed because it's "creationist"?
is that how you will label ALL dissenting evidence?
when something must be vigorously defended and cannot withstand debate then it's zealotry.
i do not value wiki as a science source.
go away noob.
as per request:
you want to address this issue then YOU START.
where does the quoted 4.6 billion years come from, the source?
is U/ Pb the method used to date earth?
i cannot confirm or deny events i did not witness.
i learned it in school james, how questionable is that?
you and i BOTH know what the story is here.
you want to address this issue then YOU START.
what do you make of the link i presented from cornell?
where does the quoted 4.6 billion years come from, the source?
is U/ Pb the method used to date earth?
i am not a creationist so i cannot answer this.
when asked to provide this alleged posting history you came up with EXACTLY zero posts
correct.
when asked to provide the post for this you also came up empty handed.
more masturbating.
like i said before i wasn't there for the testing nor did i peer review the results.
i cannot confirm or deny events i did not witness.
answered up there somewhere.
irrelevant.
You don't seem to value anything as a source, unless it already conforms to your biased ignorance.
leopold99:
Many different elements are used for dating the Earth. All estimates are in reasonable agreement, which suggests an absence of systematic error.
The source is not nearly as important as the content of a claim.
This is all rather hypothetical. What dissenting evidence are you talking about?
Unless it was a nutty Christian Creationist school in Louisiana or somewhere, then if it was in the Science curriculum it's probably accepted science. Questionable concepts aren't generally taught in primary-school science classes. Not where I live, anyway.
I don't know exactly what story you're referring to. If you wish to expose scientists as liars, please post the evidence you have about their lies.
It's a very nice link. Well done.
There isn't a single source. Rather, there are thousands of independent sources that all converge on approximately the same time scale. Which is why your ongoing denial is plainly ridiculous.
If it walks like a duck....
All of your posts on topics such as evolution and the age of the earth support the hypothesis that you are a Creationist.
So:
You can't confirm that there was a Roman Empire.
Or that men landed on the Moon.
Or that Mount Vesuvius buried the city of Pompeii.
Or that George Washington was every President.
Or that a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
Or that the 1930s ever happened at all.
etc.
In fact, you're pretty useless as a source of any knowledge at all, because most events are not witnessed or tested by you.
Let's hear no more from you about topics such as radioactive dating, because by your own admission you have never witnessed radioactive decay and are therefore unqualified to discuss the topic in any way.
Ok?
Many different elements are used for dating the Earth. All estimates are in reasonable agreement, which suggests an absence of systematic error.
The source is not nearly as important as the content of a claim.
This is all rather hypothetical. What dissenting evidence are you talking about?
Unless it was a nutty Christian Creationist school in Louisiana or somewhere, then if it was in the Science curriculum it's probably accepted science. Questionable concepts aren't generally taught in primary-school science classes. Not where I live, anyway.
I don't know exactly what story you're referring to. If you wish to expose scientists as liars, please post the evidence you have about their lies.
It's a very nice link. Well done.
There isn't a single source. Rather, there are thousands of independent sources that all converge on approximately the same time scale. Which is why your ongoing denial is plainly ridiculous.
If it walks like a duck....
All of your posts on topics such as evolution and the age of the earth support the hypothesis that you are a Creationist.
So:
You can't confirm that there was a Roman Empire.
Or that men landed on the Moon.
Or that Mount Vesuvius buried the city of Pompeii.
Or that George Washington was every President.
Or that a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
Or that the 1930s ever happened at all.
etc.
In fact, you're pretty useless as a source of any knowledge at all, because most events are not witnessed or tested by you.
Let's hear no more from you about topics such as radioactive dating, because by your own admission you have never witnessed radioactive decay and are therefore unqualified to discuss the topic in any way.
Ok?
what am i denying james?
you are a liar when you say i am denying the age of the earth.
i have found NO scientific reason i should believe evolution.
it has never been demonstrated in the lab nor has it been observed in nature.
how you can comment on my views about the age of the earth is a mystery.
more shit you pulled out of your ass i guess.
here you are with first hand knowledge of radiometric dating in a perfect position to chew me a new ass and you are refusing? ?
don't like those uncomfortable questions i can sometimes ask eh?
know what your problem is james?
you are under the assumption i am a creationist.
i have asked you to provide the posts that prove what you say and you haven't provided them.
my views on evolution is based on the complete lack of lab data.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
"i have found NO scientific reason i should believe evolution"
That's simply an argument from ignorance. Evolution has not only been observed, understanding it is a requirement for some medical treatments. It has also been reproduced in the lab. Russian scientists have used the principles of natural selection to create tame foxes, tame rats, and highly aggressive rats. So we know that natural selection can change the very nature of a species, it can change their color, size, and form. Evolution is also observed in the fossil record.
That's simply an argument from ignorance. Evolution has not only been observed, understanding it is a requirement for some medical treatments. It has also been reproduced in the lab. Russian scientists have used the principles of natural selection to create tame foxes, tame rats, and highly aggressive rats. So we know that natural selection can change the very nature of a species, it can change their color, size, and form. Evolution is also observed in the fossil record.
It's actually pretty easy to understand. We can't measure wavicles without fucking with them. It has nothing to do with a "conscious observer".
leopold99:
Great! We can settle this with one yes/no question:
leopold, is the Earth approximately 4.5 billion years old? Yes or no?
[/cue more avoidance of this question by leopold.]
Well, for God's sake go out and buy yourself an introductory textbook on biology and read it! Arguing from a position of complete ignorance makes you look like a fool.
Please don't tell lies. If you really don't know, read that biology book I told you to buy. Don't make stupid and baseless claims. You'll get yourself banned.
What are your views on the age of the Earth?
As far as I can tell from this thread, you say you can't possibly have any idea how old the Earth is because you aren't old enough to have been alive at the origin of the Earth. In the absence of personal experience of events, you say you can know nothing about them. That's right, isn't it?
Yet on the other hand, you pontificate on how the scientifically-determined age of the Earth can't possibly be correct. Based on what? On your religious views, I'm guessing.
You haven't asked me anything about that yet.
Easily fixed.
Are you a Creationist, leopold99? Yes or no?
Do you believe that Genesis is a reliable source of history and/or scientific knowledge? Yes or no?
Well, spidergoat has just assisted in your education to fix that error. Get back to us with your apology once you've read up on the lab data.
Also, don't think I didn't notice how you dodged my points about the Roman empire, the Moon landings etc.
Great! We can settle this with one yes/no question:
leopold, is the Earth approximately 4.5 billion years old? Yes or no?
[/cue more avoidance of this question by leopold.]
Well, for God's sake go out and buy yourself an introductory textbook on biology and read it! Arguing from a position of complete ignorance makes you look like a fool.
Please don't tell lies. If you really don't know, read that biology book I told you to buy. Don't make stupid and baseless claims. You'll get yourself banned.
What are your views on the age of the Earth?
As far as I can tell from this thread, you say you can't possibly have any idea how old the Earth is because you aren't old enough to have been alive at the origin of the Earth. In the absence of personal experience of events, you say you can know nothing about them. That's right, isn't it?
Yet on the other hand, you pontificate on how the scientifically-determined age of the Earth can't possibly be correct. Based on what? On your religious views, I'm guessing.
You haven't asked me anything about that yet.
Easily fixed.
Are you a Creationist, leopold99? Yes or no?
Do you believe that Genesis is a reliable source of history and/or scientific knowledge? Yes or no?
Well, spidergoat has just assisted in your education to fix that error. Get back to us with your apology once you've read up on the lab data.
Also, don't think I didn't notice how you dodged my points about the Roman empire, the Moon landings etc.
try hitting me up with some links james, prove your shit dude.
'oops, this might backfire.
heh, you won't get it anyway.
leopold:
How would that go?
JR: George Washington was the first President of the United States.
leopold99: like i said before i wasn't there for the testing nor did i peer review the results. i cannot confirm or deny events i did not witness.
JR: Look, it says here on wikipedia...
l99: wikipedia is unreliable.
JR: But every American school child is taught about George Washington!
l99: yes. i learned it in school james, how questionable is that?
JR: In fact, every reputable encyclopaedia agrees that Washington was President.
l99: Some people have raised questions about lists of Presidents. You just can't trust academics.
JR: Encyclopaedias and other sources base their information on primary historical sources. There are Congressional records, records of Washington being referred to by his contemporaries as President etc. etc.
l99: like i said before i wasn't there for the testing nor did i peer review the results. i cannot confirm or deny events i did not witness.
[repeat until we die of boredom]
How would that go?
JR: George Washington was the first President of the United States.
leopold99: like i said before i wasn't there for the testing nor did i peer review the results. i cannot confirm or deny events i did not witness.
JR: Look, it says here on wikipedia...
l99: wikipedia is unreliable.
JR: But every American school child is taught about George Washington!
l99: yes. i learned it in school james, how questionable is that?
JR: In fact, every reputable encyclopaedia agrees that Washington was President.
l99: Some people have raised questions about lists of Presidents. You just can't trust academics.
JR: Encyclopaedias and other sources base their information on primary historical sources. There are Congressional records, records of Washington being referred to by his contemporaries as President etc. etc.
l99: like i said before i wasn't there for the testing nor did i peer review the results. i cannot confirm or deny events i did not witness.
[repeat until we die of boredom]
oh god, more grilling from der fewer.
the real question is do i believe what i read and that depends on the source.
give me a figure and the source and i will tell you if i believe it, okay?
like maybe some links.
i'm not even going to ask you for the post which prove your claim.
i changed my mind, the post where i stated the age ( approx. 4.5 billion years ) is not correct, where is it james.
i DEMAND you produce it or retract your statement.
will a moderator put a stop to this jerks bullshit?
if you believe what you read it is.
the real question is do i believe what i read and that depends on the source.
give me a figure and the source and i will tell you if i believe it, okay?
well for gods sakes james hit me up with some hard science here.
like maybe some links.
see above answer james.
it might have been formed in the dark but i doubt if it was last night.
yes, that pretty well sums it up.
anything else is hearsay. in situations like that it becomes wholly a matter of trust.
i only wished this banning shit applied equally to you as it does to other members.
i'm not even going to ask you for the post which prove your claim.
i changed my mind, the post where i stated the age ( approx. 4.5 billion years ) is not correct, where is it james.
i DEMAND you produce it or retract your statement.
i'm guessing you have coke in your nose.
i sent you a PM about this james almost 2 hours ago.
will a moderator put a stop to this jerks bullshit?
This has already been discussed - both Ophiolite and myself raised it with you.
But consider. It's a pretty straight forward situation, either you believe that the earth is as old as science says it is, or you don't.
You've been asked this several times now, and I can not recall you having given a straight answer, only some half-pie weasel worded statement that can't be interpreted as eurger a definitive yes or no statement.
While some might interpret what James is doing as being akin to poking a bear with a stick, James at least has managed to maintain a civil tongue.
this can only mean one thing trippy, i don't have an answer.
what kind of person would i be if i said "yes sir"?
i also don't consider my posts "weasel worded" either but they are getting better eh?
anyway i'm checking this "age of the earth" out online.
there is no direct method of measuring it and indirect methods rely on assumptions.
the real question becomes what are the assumptions and what do they mean for the process at hand.
i've also noted that one of the earliest timelines was rivised.
these revisions might be significant too, it depends on the reason.
/humbled.
leopold99:
Do you really base your views on questions like this on a single source?
That's very bad science, leopold.
What you ought to do is to examine a wide variety of sources to see if there is any scientific consensus on the matter. Then you'll at least be in a position to make an informed judgement.
I suggest you start by googling "age of the earth". Read the first 20 results. Get back to me with information about how diverse the answers you get are. You can even comment on which results you regard as trustworthy or unreliable. I will be most interested in which of the references you find most convincing, and your reasoning.
I can tell you in advance that the first 20 results you get will give conflicting numbers. What I'm wondering is how equipped (or not) you are to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. (Note: if you can't manage 20, 10 will be a good start).
For good measure, I will add myself as a "source" for the claim that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. You will, of course, tell me whether you believe me or not, as promised.
See above. You'll also get some pseudoscience bullshit in with the science. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to sort the good from the bad science, or rather the good science from the religiously-inspired bullshit. Good luck!
How's the George Washington thing coming along for you? You can't possibly have an idea whether he was actually President or not, can you?
In your PM you asked me to stop "accusing" you of being a Creationist. You still haven't said whether you are a Creationist or not. You certainly haven't denied it.
Do you really base your views on questions like this on a single source?
That's very bad science, leopold.
What you ought to do is to examine a wide variety of sources to see if there is any scientific consensus on the matter. Then you'll at least be in a position to make an informed judgement.
I suggest you start by googling "age of the earth". Read the first 20 results. Get back to me with information about how diverse the answers you get are. You can even comment on which results you regard as trustworthy or unreliable. I will be most interested in which of the references you find most convincing, and your reasoning.
I can tell you in advance that the first 20 results you get will give conflicting numbers. What I'm wondering is how equipped (or not) you are to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. (Note: if you can't manage 20, 10 will be a good start).
For good measure, I will add myself as a "source" for the claim that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. You will, of course, tell me whether you believe me or not, as promised.
See above. You'll also get some pseudoscience bullshit in with the science. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to sort the good from the bad science, or rather the good science from the religiously-inspired bullshit. Good luck!
How's the George Washington thing coming along for you? You can't possibly have an idea whether he was actually President or not, can you?
In your PM you asked me to stop "accusing" you of being a Creationist. You still haven't said whether you are a Creationist or not. You certainly haven't denied it.
no.
sometimes i read tea leaves, others i use tarot cards.
i hardly ever use astrology.
i was thinking more along the lines of "radiometric dating methods" and "radiometric dating assumptions"
we are concerned with the method james not the actual age.
if the method is sound then the age it gives will be correct.
i'm not sure about you james. not your fault though, it's a human failing that most are susceptible to.
stop asking me this question.
Do you have any reason to think it may not be sound?
- Status