Anyone know for sure how old the earth is?

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
Multiple orders of magnitude...

Do yourself a favour and read this article if you dare:

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

Don't believe a word that comes out of the mouths of those charlatans. I have some real, peer reviewed papers for you.

For example, Zhang (99, from memory), compiles data from multiple primary research papers, using different methods with different assumptions, and comes up with a date for surface solidification of the planet of 4.53 GYa plus or minus 2%. And that's using only published figures, from studies of similar material using multiple techniques.

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
Radiometric 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.

Such as?

The only way the decay constant could change would be if nuclear physics changed. If you seriously believe this, I'm going to have to ask you to re-write large sections of the theory of relativity before I believe a single word you say. However, if we assume that physics hasn't changed greatly, then yes, those assumptions have been tested, using material with different enrichments, and measuring their output.

C14 is not nearly adequate for doing dating of the earth - it decays to background levels in only about 60,000 years.

Now, back to your bible thumping.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Never heard of scientific consensus then?

You believe a magic man talks to you, which is obviously waaaaaaay more likely.....

"scientific consensus"
That when truth is agreed upon by those that think they know what
they are talking about? Hmm, agreement is the bottom line, it is
what people think that matters? I have been saying that all along,
people believe what they will, and like minded people are still a
bunch of like minded people. Science bottoms out with people being
in agreement, okay is that what you mean? We don't need labs for
such a thing to occur, just tell everyone what you want them to
believe.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Don't believe a word that comes out of the mouths of those charlatans. I have some real, peer reviewed papers for you.

For example, Zhang (99, from memory), compiles data from multiple primary research papers, using different methods with different assumptions, and comes up with a date for surface solidification of the planet of 4.53 GYa plus or min ...[text shortened]... at's using only published figures, from studies of similar material using multiple techniques.

Don't all types of radiometric dating use basically the same types of assumptions?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Such as?

The only way the decay constant could change would be if nuclear physics changed. If you seriously believe this, I'm going to have to ask you to re-write large sections of the theory of relativity before I believe a single word you say. However, if we assume that physics hasn't changed greatly, then yes, those assumptions have been ...[text shortened]... t decays to background levels in only about 60,000 years.

Now, back to your bible thumping.

At the temperature or pressure, collisions with stray cosmic rays or the emanations of other atoms may cause changes other than those of normal disintegration. It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays. The evidence for a strongly increasing change in the cosmic ray influx is most favorable especially in light of the decay of the earth’s magnetic field.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
you couldnt be further from the truth; science is not based on faith, it is based on fact; findings in a lab, evidence before the eyes

Really, you don't think someone suggesting when they look at a
piece of 'evidence' that the way they 'describe' it has beliefs and
faith wrapped up in the description?
Kelly

Originally posted by Ragnorak
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

Yes I believe in the death penalty.

You would look at the evidence, come up with what you 'believe'
happened and make a judgment, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt
you convict. You believe that looking at 'evidence' will always lead
you to come up with the facts of the matter, even as far back as two
months ago? You believe that looking pieces of evidence will
always allow you to get it all right, to the point that you know you
are dealing with facts and not faith?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't think someone suggesting when they look at a
piece of 'evidence' that the way they 'describe' it has beliefs and
faith wrapped up in the description?
Kelly

What you are really saying and want us to admit to is your 'faith' in your religion is on the same level as the 'faith' a scientist has in his measurements. We are telling you that is not even close to the truth.
Your faith stays the same no matter what your reasoning says.
Scientific evidence can change, like the shift in thinking between Newtonian gravity, which still works to guide spacecraft and Einsteinian physics which only modifies Newtionian physics at high gravity or high velocity. There was solid evidence given in the early 20th century that changed peoples outlook on that subject, whereas before people would go, nice theory, looks good on paper, prove it. So new evidence came in and the rest is history. You on the other hand will take your faith to extremes and refuse to change your view no matter what the evidence before your eyes. That is the differance between science and your religion. Science can change the opinion of open minded people and when it looks like the evidence of the story of the development of life on earth goes against the bible, you choose the bible and are unable to accept the fact that the world has grown beyond your faith so you try to negate the world. You care nothing for science only in the continuing effort by you and millions of other brainwashed people to subvert real science to your preconcieved notions outdated by 2000 years of evidence to the contrary. You won't really look at evidence, read real papers, only find so-called scientists of your faith who also have an axe to grind which is to grind down the excellent work of real scientists in a vain attempt to sway people away from the truth of the universe which has absolutely nothing in common with the pitiful dogma of your outdated religion.

Originally posted by shavixmir

So, for all intensive purposes the earth is older than me and will probably outlast my children.

It's intents and purposes you faggot.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
It's intents and purposes you faggot.

I think he knew that. Why are you calling him a burning coal?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I'm 100% sure that the age of the earth is in the order of billions of years. And I'm 100% sure it's not in the order of thousands of years. Science tells me this.

I'm 100% sure that one cannot calculate the age of the earth in years from reading the Bible.

I'm also 100% sure that for centries a significant portion of Hebrew language readers of the book of Genesis shared the same opinion even before the invention of geology.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What you are really saying and want us to admit to is your 'faith' in your religion is on the same level as the 'faith' a scientist has in his measurements. We are telling you that is not even close to the truth.
Your faith stays the same no matter what your reasoning says.
Scientific evidence can change, like the shift in thinking between Newtonian gravi ...[text shortened]... se which has absolutely nothing in common with the pitiful dogma of your outdated religion.

"What you are really saying and want us to admit to is your 'faith' in your religion is on the same level as the 'faith' a scientist has in his measurements. We are telling you that is not even close to the truth."

What I'm really saying is faith is faith, we are people and we live by it.
You can try to say your faith in the logic of some scientist is better
than someone else's faith in God, I don't care! It is still faith, when
you apply your belief system to the world around you and come up
with what you call truth or facts. You may be right, you may be wrong,
it depends on the subject matter, bottom line you are still a person of
faith, it is just being put into something other than what I put mine
into.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What I'm really saying is faith is faith, we are people and we live by it.

I wish that was all you were saying. However you frequently imply that there is a difference between faith in what you can see in front of you and faith in what happened 4 billion years ago. You imply that there is a difference between faith that gravity exists and faith that the earth is billions of years old. But you never let yourself be pinned down, you just try to sow the seeds of doubt.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"scientific consensus"
That when truth is agreed upon by those that think they know what
they are talking about? Hmm, agreement is the bottom line, it is
what people think that matters? I have been saying that all along,
people believe what they will, and like minded people are still a
bunch of like minded people. Science bottoms out with people being ...[text shortened]... ed labs for
such a thing to occur, just tell everyone what you want them to
believe.
Kelly

"religion"
Where the truth is agreed upon by those who don't know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by Phuzudaka
Don't all types of radiometric dating use basically the same types of assumptions?

But not the same specific ones. If the decay constants were wrong [or variable], the difference, when measuring a time interval so big, would be enormous. Much, much bigger than 2%!