Dawkins Admits that they are working on it.

[FishFace]

Of course if you make prophecies that can be interpreted to mean anything you can never be wrong

That's why it's so great being infallibe

 

[Naraoia]

ooops... double post

 

[Naraoia]

You should be humble enough to realise you are still daydreaming and there is no way of testing so if someone talks billions that is mere extrapolation and no dating technique is even involved.

Talk about being humble? Who is the one who knows nil about science and acts with all this arrogant confidence about it? And daydreaming? No, dear, we have plenty of ways to date billion-year-old stuff. It's not extrapolation.

Let's see. These are some isotopes with long half-lives:

Potassium 40 --->Argon 40, half-life 1.25 billion yrs

Rubidium 87--->Strontium 87, half-life 48.8 billion yrs

Thorium 232--->Lead 208, half-life 14 billion years

Uranium 235--->Lead 207, half-life 704 million years

Uranium 238--->Lead 206, half-life 4.47 billion years

(source, or this, or this. Or probably countless other sites. A little learning won't hurt you.)

Potassium, for example, is a common ingredient of igneous rocks.

 

[FishFace]

That is false carbon dating does not work for 3000 years old, I was being ironic to show you how messed up your speculation is.

You got the dates using distances and what you speculate happened, if you theory is wrong the whole edifice collapses.

You should be humble enough to realise you are still daydreaming and there is no way of testing so if someone talks billions that is mere extrapolation and no dating technique is even involved.

Speakout, please. Why don't you do some research on dating methods (google, and wikipedia are your friends) before you discard them? You might also want to consider why, whenever a scientist or historian needs a date for something more than a few hundred years ago, he will use a method such as carbon dating, radiological dating or other methods which all end up with large ages for the earth and things on it.
It's not "extrapolation" it's actually the solution of a first order differential equation.

 

[BrainHertz]

That is false carbon dating does not work for 3000 years old, I was being ironic to show you how messed up your speculation is.

Please explain why C14 dating doesn't work on something 3000 years old (given usual applicability constraints)

You got the dates using distances and what you speculate happened, if you theory is wrong the whole edifice collapses.

I can't even parse this sentence, I'm sorry. Could you explain?

You should be humble enough to realise you are still daydreaming and there is no way of testing so if someone talks billions that is mere extrapolation and no dating technique is even involved.

You should be humble enough to look up some actual dating methods before lecturing people about it. Start with Rubidium-Strontium, for example. Google is your friend.

 

[flatworm]

That is false carbon dating does not work for 3000 years old, I was being ironic to show you how messed up your speculation is.

We have sequences of tree growth rings dating back much farther than 3000 years, and ice core samples that can be carbon dated going back much further.

Now, here's the problem for you- the carbon isotope ratios for ice cores and tree rings of the same ages (as determined by counting layers) match exactly.

If carbon dating doesn't work even 3000 years back, why do the curves agree?

Second, other radiometric datings consistently find an upper bound of 4.5 billion years for the oldest minerals on earth? Various methods, using various isotopes of various elements, all agreeing to the same age. Why?

Why do the oldest meteorites we've found date to nearly the same age, over many meteorites, using many different dating methods?

You got the dates using distances and what you speculate happened, if you theory is wrong the whole edifice collapses.

Distances are not really part of the calculation.

As noted before, we have meteorites here on earth that give us clues for the time of formation of the entire solar system. The mechanics of solar system formation are not speculation because it's still going on today. We can watch it through our telescopes. We do, in fact, have examples of stars and solar systems of in various stages of development.

You should be humble enough to realise you are still daydreaming and there is no way of testing so if someone talks billions that is mere extrapolation and no dating technique is even involved.

When you stop making up "facts", and stop pretending to know better than all the astronomers and physicists in all the world, and admit you know nothing about the subject, then you can come back to me and talk about humility.

 

[Morcova]

That is false carbon dating does not work for 3000 years old, I was being ironic to show you how messed up your speculation is.

You got the dates using distances and what you speculate happened, if you theory is wrong the whole edifice collapses.

What distances? And why should we listen to you, you don't even have any idea what is being measured here..

You should be humble enough to realise you are still daydreaming and there is no way of testing so if someone talks billions that is mere extrapolation and no dating technique is even involved.

The joys and wonders of hypocrisy.