Anyone know for sure how old the earth is?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean the one dated from 1985 or so? That one has been thouroughly (obviously not to your satisfaction) discredited.

No, I mean those that are dated from 1998-2007.

Maybe you would be so kind as to send me the thourough discreditation of this document?

If you have the guts to read even the first few pages of it...

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#different%20methods

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
No, I mean those that are dated from 1998-2007.

Maybe you would be so kind as to send me the thourough discreditation of this document?

If you have the guts to read even the first few pages of it...

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#different%20methods

The creationists couldn't find any biologists or even chemists or physicists to defend them, so they resorted to a computer scientist. I love it.

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
No, I mean those that are dated from 1998-2007.

Maybe you would be so kind as to send me the thourough discreditation of this document?

If you have the guts to read even the first few pages of it...

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#different%20methods

1. None of the cited URLs went anywhere.

2. "Perhaps the earth was made from older pre-existing matter, or perhaps decay rates were briefly faster for some reason. When one considers the power of God, one sees that any such conclusions are to some extent tentative." Utter rubbish. If he wants to make claims about the "power of God" he has to prove God exists first.

3. "We can assume that the Precambrian rocks already existed when life began" Why? This is not a safe or even logical conclusion, and is NOT backed up by, for example, 3.5 billion year old stromatolites.

4. "We also need to know that no parent or daughter has entered or left the system in the meantime." How does one put more Uranium in a rock?

5. "If the radiometric dating problem has been solved in this manner, then why do we need isochrons, which are claimed to be more accurate?"
This is akin to asking why we can't solve all of science with one experiment, or one measurement.

6. The claim is made that water percolating through the system could change the distribution of elements. Whilst this is theoretically possible over the surfaces, it would not be true of the interior of the rock. No solid evidence of this is presented.

7. “It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past.” Yet this is unobserved. Also, it would change different clocks by differing amounts. If this is true, there should NEVER be any synteny between different measurements, yet there is plenty.

Actually, glancing through the rest of the web page (I have to go to work soon), there are lots of "maybes" and "possiblies", but no hard evidence.

Originally posted by whiterose
The creationists couldn't find any biologists or even chemists or physicists to defend them, so they resorted to a computer scientist. I love it.

It wouldn't much matter if he were a real physicist or a Roller derby skater, if they made up a page with nonsensical 'evidence' that showed dating was wrong, the creationists would endorse it to a man.
You have to remember, they are desparate people.

Again....http://www.earthage.org/#What%20if%20God 🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Again....http://www.earthage.org/#What%20if%20God 🙂

Berg is a idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truthteller

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Again....http://www.earthage.org/#What%20if%20God 🙂

What a load of crap.

Got any proof? I've got a whole discipline (science) to back ME up.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of crap.

Got any proof? I've got a whole discipline (science) to back ME up.

Hey, how could ANYONE doubt the veracity of this one, a link from the same site:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/what_happened_to_all_the_dark_ma.htm
Hey, IT COULD HAPPEN🙂

why does aybody actually care how old the world is - i think we'd be better of spending billions of pounds on new rockets and telescopes to find new planets that we can't go to and doesn't affect us when there's kids starving and dying, and those that don't aren't educated and have no real future ahead of them

Originally posted by John1916
why does aybody actually care how old the world is - i think we'd be better of spending billions of pounds on new rockets and telescopes to find new planets that we can't go to and doesn't affect us when there's kids starving and dying, and those that don't aren't educated and have no real future ahead of them

So you think we are just loading rockets with money meant for orphans and launching the stuff into orbit? Where do you think the money is spent? New technologies happen when you spend money on technology, that benefits all mankind like easy to build filters that takes out aresenic from tainted waters in the desert countries or flashlights that need no batteries, just squeeze the handle a few times and you have light, nothing to break, no incadescent bulbs but LED's that last for decades. Solar ovens that can cook food without needing fire by Bedouin tribesmen in the middle of nowhere.
If it had not been for all t that wasted money spent in space, when do you think these things would have come about? I just scratched the surface of a BIG page of such things.
As to this pathetic debate about the age of the earth, its not the scientists arguing such things, it's the diehard religious freaks who can't wrap their head around reality and can only spout a 2000 year old book so full of contradictions as to not be worth reading.