Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually (and I freely admit that Im nitpicking a bit), he's using evolution to back up the argument that the earth is billions of years old (as per your OP, which didnt mention evolution)Novaknight1 said:You're using the fact of Evolution to prove the theory of Evolution? Are you using circular reasoning? How do you know the species weren't created?
Travis St. Hubbins said:Can anyone name one process that says the Earth is 6000 years old besides "The Bible/God says so"?
corvus_corax said:Actually (and I freely admit that Im nitpicking a bit), he's using evolution to back up the argument that the earth is billions of years old (as per your OP, which didnt mention evolution)
corvus_corax said:Im guessing......
A lot!
Im pretty sure my wages wouldnt even be a down payment
Believe it or not, I actually found itNovaknight1 said:Maybe Bill Gates couldn't make a down payment.
corvus_corax said:Believe it or not, I actually found it
10 million US dollars (1999 rate)
Apparently, there are 10 in the world
It seeing multiple PRATTs in here, so i'll just post the links to the rebuttals rather than give a two page report on each claim. After this, I hope you will learn to be a bit more skeptical about the creationists links.Novaknight1 said:
It's really not that controversial, except when it comes to creationists. With carbon dating and such we can tell it's at least a certain age. This dating process goes a bit farther than them and tells the full age with surprising accuracy. There could be more dating proccesses that go back that far to tell the age of the earth but geology isn't my thing.Novaknight1 said:So he says the Earth's billions of years old because of ONE highly controversial process. I think one might want a little bit more convincing evidence.
I feel sorry for you all ready.Novaknight1 said:I heard, from Kent Hovind's seminar
1) I wouldn't trust Hovind on that subject or any subject for that matter if I were you.and from a book called The Collapse of Evolution, that Evos could use Carbon dating to date dinosaurs in ice,
but that would indicate a young creature.
That's a bit of creationist dishonesty actually. There are restrictions for getting accurite measurements with the dating process and with this, they misuse the method on purpose to make it look like the method was flawed. To learn how they misused the process, I recommend you read up on the reservoir effect.According to Scientific Creation, it dated a live mollusk's shell to be 27,000 years old.
Novaknight1 said:According to Scientific Creation, it dated a live mollusk's shell to be 27,000 years old.
I was just making the point some dating measurements can show the earth to be at least a certain age, but that's all.kahri said:Carbon 12, with a half life of some 5200 years, isn't useful for dating the Earth. Just thought I'd point that out.
For instance, we could count the Green River formation in Wyoming. It contains more than 4,000,000 layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain freshwater lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.
The basic reason for varves is that rivers run faster in the spring. A flooding river is able to carry coarse material. During the rest of the year, the river is slower, and it can only carry less-coarse material. The result is that lake bottom deposits tend to alternate, coarse/fine/coarse/fine.
Studies of present-day lakes don't always show two layers per year. There might be a cycle of 2, 3 or 4 distinct sediments, and then the same cycle repeats. But in the Green River varves, the cycle has only two layers - a fine light sediment, and an even finer dark sediment.
And of course the occasional storm might add an extra layer. However, this hardly turns millions of layers into a 6,000 year project.
Measuring Carbon 12?kahri said:Carbon 12, with a half life of some 5200 years, isn't useful for dating the Earth. Just thought I'd point that out.
corvus_corax said:Measuring Carbon 12?
Carbon 14 has a measurable effect for up to approximately 50,000 years, Uranium-thorium dating has an upper age limit of somewhat over 500,000 years, and lets not forget that the potassium isotope K40 decays to argon40 with a half-life of 1,300,000,000 years
Ah righto!kahri said:What I meant was that Carbon dating is not proper in determining older dates. I realized that I did not include C14, which is why I edited my post right after (although not fast enough, it would seem).
Event Horizon said:It's really not that controversial, except when it comes to creationists. With carbon dating and such we can tell it's at least a certain age. This dating process goes a bit farther than them and tells the full age with surprising accuracy. There could be more dating proccesses that go back that far to tell the age of the earth but geology isn't my thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?