Originally posted by PhuzudakaThis is all complete garbage. Read the link posted earlier, DJ.
Arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions, each link in the chain being an assumption. The validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most Evolutionists in using these systems?
ASSUMPTION: It is generally assumed that the m ...[text shortened]... must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou believe in the death penalty, KellyJay.
You know what occured billions of years ago?
You know how old the earth is, or is it a matter of faith?
Now, if you were on jury duty in a murder trial, how would you know what occurred 2 months ago? How would you know that the accused was at the scene of the crime? Fingerprints? DNA? Would the police or people tell you that the accused was there?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakBump for KellyJay.
You believe in the death penalty, KellyJay.
Now, if you were on jury duty in a murder trial, how would you know what occurred 2 months ago? How would you know that the accused was at the scene of the crime? Fingerprints? DNA? Would the police or people tell you that the accused was there?
D
D
Originally posted by josephwWhat level of accuracy is required for you? A billion years? A million? 10 years? 5 seconds? 2 microseconds? Scientists always say the mean of all measurements is xyz plus or minus a range of certainty, normally 1 standard error, standard deviation or 95% confidence limits. This is because both the universe is a stochastic place, and measurements always have some variability to them. Thus, all we can do is calculate the distribution of measurements made, and assume that to be a fair and valid representation of the whole system. If one has sampled randomly, it should be. However, the christian literature is full of examples where people have sampled non-randomly, or applied inappropriate methodology in order try and undermine traditional science. However, what can you say to undermine a group who gave the world the methodology behind communications satellites and CAT scanners?
If you're not sure then why guess?
Originally posted by josephwEver heard the saying, "if it looks like a dog, and sounds like a dog, it's probably a dog"?
I've repeatedly said that the age of the earth is probably older than we can imagine, but I also know that God could have snapped his fingers and created it old in a mere moment of time.
Why do you require the possibility that God is a liar?
Originally posted by KellyJayNever heard of scientific consensus then?
When someone says 'science tells them' do you think they are
refering to other worldy voices? Personally, I believe they are not
refering to science as a being, yet it comes off that way, they accept
the views of some people over others, and that to them is the same
as saying science tells them something, when in fact, it is simply
some person or a com ...[text shortened]... of the earth, you have beliefs on that topic,
or do you call what you have, 'facts'?
Kelly
You believe a magic man talks to you, which is obviously waaaaaaay more likely.....
Originally posted by PhuzudakaThe values of the amounts of radioisotope I measure in a rock today will not change tomorrow. That is a fact. The amounts in the rock might, but the values will not.
Do facts change? No.
But Scientific knowledge is continually changing. So you cannot claim that current Scientific knowledge is a fact.
Science progresses, usually by step by step progression, not by the wholesale re-organisation of everything that you suggest. That's Creationist propaganda only.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzClearly any answer that does not say the world was 6000 years old is going to be wrong. Even if it's one of the most stupid arguments on the planet, which it is. Anyone looking at places like the Grand Canyon and then going, WOW, isn't it amazing all of this happened in 6000 years? is clearly demented. But they demand it such because of a fairy tale not even originating with christianity. They even think it's their OWN fairy tale.
What level of accuracy is required for you? A billion years? A million? 10 years? 5 seconds? 2 microseconds? Scientists always say the mean of all measurements is xyz plus or minus a range of certainty, normally 1 standard error, standard deviation or 95% confidence limits. This is because both the universe is a stochastic place, and measurements ...[text shortened]... ne a group who gave the world the methodology behind communications satellites and CAT scanners?
Originally posted by XanthosNZMultiple orders of magnitude...
Do any of them state that radioactive dating could be multiple orders of magnitude out or do they refer to percentages?
Do yourself a favour and read this article if you dare:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#different%20methods
Originally posted by scottishinnzRadiometric dating is predicated on the assumption that throughout the earth’s history radioactive decay rates of the various elements have remained constant. Is this a warranted assumption? Has every radioactive nuclide proceeded on a rigid course of decay at a constant rate? This has been challenged by studies involving Carbon (C)-14.
Yes, assumptions are made. Of course.
However, those assumptions have been rigorously tested.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaWell... the earth is older than me. I mean it was around before I was born.
And I know that there's a high chance of the earth being around after I die.
So, for all intensive purposes the earth is older than me and will probably outlast my children.
So it's old. It's ancient.
Why?