So...how old is the Earth?

[Chico_Zimbabwe]

No sorry. There's really no such thing as un-biased evidence. There's a lot of articles here about the problems with dating techniques:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating

Thank you Mahogony. I think the answersingenesis website is pretty biased itself. What I would really like to see are some peer-reviewed articles from a reputable journal that show radiometric dating to be innaccurate.

There are bad apples in every bunch but I disagree with you that scientists are generally biased. They are taught to follow the truth no matter where it leads and many tears have been shed holding to that principle.

Do you have any experience doing scientific research at a post graduate level?

 

[Slepsog4]

Chico,

The movie "Expelled" revealed the fact that the scientific community has a lock down on the subject of evolution to the point of ostracizing any and all who differ.

Finding a true legitimate peer-review would be difficult if not impossible. All journals of reputation are sold-out.

Try doing some research at the Institute for Creation Research or Apologetics Press. These are real scientists and researchers who are creationists.

 

[Chico_Zimbabwe]

Chico,

The movie "Expelled" revealed the fact that the scientific community has a lock down on the subject of evolution to the point of ostracizing any and all who differ.

Finding a true legitimate peer-review would be difficult if not impossible. All journals of reputation are sold-out.

Try doing some research at the Institute for Creation Research or Apologetics Press. These are real scientists and researchers who are creationists.

Thank you Slepsog. If radiactive dating were found to be inaccurate, that would be worthy of a high tier journal such as Nature or Science, regardless of any supposed conspiracy against creationists. I don't think that The Institute for Creation Research and Apologetics Press are reputable institutions because they practice the very bias that they accuse real scientists of. They reject data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.

 

[Chico_Zimbabwe]

I think earth is eleventy billion years old give or take twenty billion years. My evidence is that, um...stuff.

You're cool! I hope your husband comes back safe and sound. Thank you for what you both do for all of us!!!!

 

[MahogonySnail]

Thank you Mahogony. I think the answersingenesis website is pretty biased itself. What I would really like to see are some peer-reviewed articles from a reputable journal that show radiometric dating to be innaccurate.

I'd like to see some of those as well. I'm sure there's some viewable in google scholar. The problem, is, you'll still get your bias in peer-review journals as well. The people on answersingenesis are scientific backgrounded I think, they're geologists. But admittedly alot of young earth creationists are talking about old outdated methods which were less reliable than they are not. Still, I think they have a point about the assumption of constant decay rates over millions or billions of years causing problems. It makes sense to me, we don't really know that things were always constant for millions of years, and in fact we can never know unless we perfect the art of time-travel.

There are bad apples in every bunch but I disagree with you that scientists are generally biased. They are taught to follow the truth no matter where it leads and many tears have been shed holding to that principle.

We'd like to think that scientists are unbiased but I think in reality every scientist is based to a certain degree. Facts are things like "the earth is warming" the bias comes in the interpretation "why is the earth warming?". And when we're dealing with origins of mankind which is really a sort of "pseudo-science " (since there are more assumptions about how things were in the past rather than hard fact observables in the present), then add religion or evolutionary theory into the mix there's a lot more bias. But a lot of past scientists were in fact religious men, and a lot of scientists today believe in God, I think they outnumber the atheists or at least 50/50. Science is not synonymous with "agnostic" or "atheist" or "unbiased" nor "factual" , nor "truthful" in some cases - although non-religious people would like to pretend it is like that, and sell this lie to the public that only science coming from "non-religious" sources can be trusted. Or that religious people are less intelligent than scientific agnostic or atheist. But it's nonsense. You know, in the scientifict world nothing is without a price, even the truth. As other examples - the whole global warming debate. You have a handful of reputable scientists speaking against this seemingly unstoppable movement of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" environmental agenda - led by who? Scientists? Not really - politicians, environmental groups, socialists ... etc, scientists are in it for the ride it's $$$$$. Meh, it's good to think outside the box sometimes. And why did they really spend millions, billion? of dollars in the 60's to send men to the moon? To give a great TV story? To be the first? To plant the american flag on the moon? Nah, the real agenda was associated with developing rocket (i.e. ballistic missile) technology, and sending a couple of guys to the moon kept the public happy .

Do you have any experience doing scientific research at a post graduate level?

Yes but I have no experience in this field so I can't comment about any of these dating methods or how they do things. So I don't find a view that science is biased or the way things are done are wrong, that hard to believe, and yeah those peer-reviewed journals are another kettle of fish. Scientists are only human and every scientist has a religion (aka belief system). So it's far from being unbiased - particularly with the way government research performance metrics are. You won't get unbiased science, especially not in the areas dealing with origins of man or ages of the earth. What you get is answers which are more or less plausable than the alternatives, it's up to us to decide which biased opinion we want to believe in the most, because you probably won't find something straight down the middle on this topic, if you do let me know.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I said it earlier in the thread...

It's very difficult for the bias of a single astronomer or geologist, or even a group of them to make much of an impact on the findings withing the scientific community as a whole. Their information is checked, double checked, checked again, etc.

It's not necessarily about proving yourself right, but trying to prove yourself...or the other guy wrong.

 

[Chico_Zimbabwe]

I'd like to see some of those as well .

The references in this Wikipedia article seem to have some that address the issue of accuracy.

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

This one in particular looks to be pretty good review of radiocarbon dating in general.

http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/109/2/j92cur.pdf

Enjoy!

 

[Pray4ever]

First of all, it really doesn't matter to me at all. But, there are a couple of things I want to mention. The first is that we don't really know how long it was between 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, where the earth was without form and void and 2. When God said, "Let there be light." For all we know, it could have been billions of years.

The following are my own thoughts and not related to the Bible. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is truly interesting. He said, and it has been scientifically proven that the faster a human travels, the slower he ages. If two twins were born, one stayed on earth and one went on a journey to the north star and back at the speed of light. The north star is about 35 light years from earth, so the journey to the north star would take 70 years. The twin would step off the rocket as a 70 year old, but his twin would have died over 1,000 years before.

Many theologians believe that those taken in the rapture, go all the way to the Third Heaven in the twinkling of an eye to be with Christ. That would be much faster than the speed of light. Think about it! If every soul that dies travels that fast to immediately be present with the Lord in Heaven, then it's possible that everyone that has ever died, even those 6,000 years ago, may only realize that one second of time has gone by, while at the same time, 6,000 years passed on the earth. To them, one second they are with Christ in Heaven, and one second later, they are with Christ standing on the Mount of Olives. Just food for thought.

I believe God can bend time anyway He wants to. My best suggestion to all is: Psalm 118:8. "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

 

[cowgrl_kimmi]

Of course 6000 year view may be in error if someone can't do the math.

... and for how many years has it been said that the Earth is 6000 years old? I've never thought to look into this, lol.

 

[Semiazas]

ahaha, it always give me a laugh to hear ppl try to use science and logic and mathematical calculations concerning biblical ideologies. its adorable. aww, so cute. you guys actually think that your using logic and reason. like when a 3 yr old puts on daddys work boots, and goes stomping through the living room saying, im a big boy!

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

ahaha, it always give me a laugh to hear ppl try to use science and logic and mathematical calculations concerning biblical ideologies. its adorable. aww, so cute. you guys actually think that your using logic and reason. like when a 3 yr old puts on daddys work boots, and goes stomping through the living room saying, im a big boy!

It's actually the other way round, it's often embarassing for Christians to witness spiritual babies crawling around picking up any old secular doctrine of science falsely called and sticking it is their mouths, it would be amusing if it was not so dangerous for you

 

[Semiazas]

ha haha! christians, thinking they are the adults! no, actually it is as i said it is. christians are the babies, since logic predates that religion. science has realistic, observable, facts. nothing has proven to be more dangerous than ignorant religious zealotry. what is dangerous, is when a christian forms an opinon and then begins to act as if it is fact, when it is not. it is actually religious belief. there is a difference between knowing and believing. christians dont seem to know that difference. the danger is yours, misguided, misinformed, deluded. you have my pity.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

ha haha! christians, thinking they are the adults! no, actually it is as i said it is. christians are the babies, since logic predates that religion.

As Christ is before all things and by Him all things are created and without Him nothing can exist and He upholds all things by His word, without Christ logic cannot exist, in fact you yourself cannot even exist, let alone your ability to reason, which without the spirit of truth to testify to you and for you, you would not have.

science has realistic, observable, facts. nothing has proven to be more dangerous than ignorant religious zealotry. what is dangerous, is when a christian forms an opinon and then begins to act as if it is fact, when it is not. it is actually religious belief. there is a difference between knowing and believing. christians dont seem to know that difference. the danger is yours, misguided, misinformed, deluded. you have my pity.

Well you have my pity, and hopefully the good Lord can release you from your blindness so you may join us in the truth that is in Christ.

 

[Slepsog4]

Semiazas,

Did you know that virtually every major branch of scientific inquiry was started by someone who believed in the God of the Bible and the Bible as the Word of God?

Did you know that science can prove nothing? Everything science puts forth is only tentative. The reason being is that no mere man or panel of men can know everything, observe everything, or interpret those observations with perfect neutrality. This is why many things that science puts forth is often overturned upon further investigation.

Everything the Bible says that bears on history and science is or has been confirmed.

Faith biblically speaking is not mere opinion. Faith is the reasoned conclusion based on evidence. It is the same as knowledge. It draws only those conclusions which necessarily follow. Anything short of this is opinion.

You might notice that I have appealed to the use of logic... the use of correct reasoning.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yep, you got it right. Science hasn't ever proven anything. Anything.

We haven't proven the existence of gravity, we don't have a concrete formula that can explain the effects and strength of gravity, and predict the actions of items in motion within said gravitational system. No clue.

We haven't proven that the earth revolves around the sun, we haven't proven that space isn't made out of water, we haven't proven that nuclear fusion is what makes the stars shine, and is the sole reason that we aren't frozen corpsesicles.

We know nothing, it's all just a hunch.

/sarcasm in your face

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Yep, you got it right. Science hasn't ever proven anything. Anything.

We haven't proven the existence of gravity, we don't have a concrete formula that can explain the effects and strength of gravity, and predict the actions of items in motion within said gravitational system. No clue.

Apart from the sarcasm, "Gravity" is a theory and an unproven one, either Newtonian or Einsteinian as they contradict each other, regardless are both equally flawed and admittedly so by those who formulated the theories themselves.

We haven't proven that the earth revolves around the sun,

Well in fact, the answer is NO, it has never been scientifically proven, that the earth revolves around the sun, again it is a theory - heliocentricism, however it has been proven in numerous scientific experiments that the earth is stationary.

we haven't proven that space isn't made out of water, we haven't proven that nuclear fusion is what makes the stars shine, and is the sole reason that we aren't frozen corpsesicles.

Ahhh, again no, scientists have no scientific evidence that stars are like our sun, thats just what your text book told you in public state school, you would be niave to establish any cosmology from your high school or your univeristy or the HollywoodNASA team, or newspapers or television.

We know nothing, it's all just a hunch.

[/quote]

Yes you got that one right, indeed you know nothing.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Well in fact, the answer is NO, it has never been scientifically proven, that the earth revolves around the sun, again it is a theory - heliocentricism, however it has been proven in numerous scientific experiments that the earth is stationary.

F=Gm1m2/d^2

F: force of gravity
m: mass of the bodies in question
d: distance between the two
G: gravitational constant (6.67300x10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2)

And seriously? Earth has been proven to be stationary, huh? I feel as though I have been deceived my entire life.

No. Seriously.

Ahhh, again no, scientists have no scientific evidence that stars are like our sun, thats just what your text book told you in public state school, you would be niave to establish any cosmology from your high school or your univeristy or the HollywoodNASA team, or newspapers or television.

I'll let that one slide, we'll just ignore the fact that all of my formal education thus far is in the field of astronomy.

You're playing the old 'absence of evidence = evidence of absence' game. Aside from the fact that we have yet to physically approach a foreign star, this is no reasonable suggestion that they differ from our own in their most basic right. (A super-massive ball of plasma supporting the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms under its own gravity.)

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

F=Gm1m2/d^2

F: force of gravity
m: mass of the bodies in question
d: distance between the two
G: gravitational constant (6.67300x10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2)

That such a measured force exists is not in question, what is questionable is the cause of the known force being due to "Gravity", the theory of it being Gravity caused is without conclusive proof.

And seriously? Earth has been proven to be stationary, huh? I feel as though I have been deceived my entire life.

Michelson/Morely Experiment, otherwise you can hold to your belief that distances and length shrink when objects move, changing time itself as mass increases, you would need to do that to explain the anomalies of the M/M experiment.

No. Seriously.

Yes. Seriously.

I'll let that one slide, we'll just ignore the fact that all of my formal education thus far is in the field of astronomy.

Oh, really, than I am sure you have alot to learn.

You're playing the old 'absence of evidence = evidence of absence' game. Aside from the fact that we have yet to physically approach a foreign star, this is no reasonable suggestion that they differ from our own in their most basic right. (A super-massive ball of plasma supporting the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms under its own gravity.)

LOL.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

That such a measured force exists is not in question, what is questionable is the cause of the known force being due to "Gravity", the theory of it being Gravity caused is without conclusive proof.

I don't know what you just said. Regardless, gravity is an extremely, extremely weak force. All mass has a gravitational field, but it must be of significant mass for said gravity to have any effect. That's a gross oversimplification.

'Reducto ad absurdum'

Michelson/Morely Experiment, otherwise you can hold to your belief that distances and length shrink when objects move, changing time itself as mass increases, you would need to do that to explain the anomalies of the M/M experiment.

Lets just not mention the fact that the Michelson-Morely Experiment is regarded as 'The most famous failed experiment.'

Also, the Michelson-Morely Experiment does nothing for your case of a geocentric model of the universe, it only discussion the possible existence of a 'Luminiferous aether.'

Understand the material before you cite it.

Without going into all of the details, the statement 'Unicorns exist' has more scientific merit.

Yes. Seriously.

No. Seriously.

Oh, really, than I am sure you have alot to learn.

Yeah, you got me, I am an retrad.

1. Stick to what you know best. Hating America.
B. You aren't going to win an argument that centers around MODERN science if you continually cite archaic experiments that hold no weight whatsoever in the modern scientific community.
3. Yeah, really, star = super-massive ball of gasses and metals undergoing a hydrogen-fusing chain reaction (a.k.a nuclear fusion) as a result of their own gravity.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

I don't know what you just said. Regardless, gravity is an extremely, extremely weak force. All mass has a gravitational field, but it must be of significant mass for said gravity to have any effect. That's a gross oversimplification.

We cannot define what causes gravity, and as you just said it is an extremely weak force and there are forces that are infinitely more powerful than gravity.

Lets just not mention the fact that the Michelson-Morely Experiment is regarded as 'The most famous failed experiment.'

Yes it failed because it set out to prove a moving earth, no experiment has ever proved a moving earth, it fact the opposite is the known result. (And don't even bother with Focault's Pendulum trick)

Also, the Michelson-Morely Experiment does nothing for your case of a geocentric model of the universe, it only discussion the possible existence of a 'Luminiferous aether.'

It proves that no experiment has concluded scientifically that the earth is in motion, that's the point, if it's not in motion, than it is stationary.

Understand the material before you cite it.

Oh I understand it alright.