The Danger of Creationism

[Astrid]

.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes they do with carbon dating. Science is cool.

Carbon dating is limited to measuring things 50,000 to 60,000 years old. It's typically used for dating archaeological finds.

Radiometric Measurements in the billions of years are done using a variety of radioactive isotopes.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia
OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

Carbon dating is limited to measuring things 50,000 to 60,000 years old. It's typically used for dating archaeological finds.

Radiometric Measurements in the billions of years are done using a variety of radioactive isotopes.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia
OB

Important addendum. Carbon dating require an object that incorporated fresh atmospheric carbon.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes they do with carbon dating. Science is cool.

Which if you read you would see they don't

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes they do with carbon dating. Science is cool.

Which if you read you would see they don't. They estimate. They say there is a high probability. It's not absolute

 

[BPPLEE]

You falsified my words.
Now a phony apology for some nonsense.
Enuf. Bye.

So how are you and your father getting along?

 

[sjastro]

There are many techniques for dating materials some of which overlap which allow comparisons such as thermoluminescence dating of a pot when it was first fired with the radiocarbon dating of the organic residue inside the pot.

​

Pb-Pb (Lead - Lead) is not included in the list as it has been superseded by U-Pb (Uranium to Lead) but is still the preferred method for dating meteorites.

 

[BPPLEE]

The subtopic with me is about education and fundamentalism.
Literal genesis is a typical fundamentalist belief.
But call yourself as you wish, the stats
dont change.

The most and least educated U.S. religious groups

I read the article. It doesn't say anything about fundamentalist

 

[rturner76]

Carbon dating is limited to measuring things 50,000 to 60,000 years old. It's typically used for dating archaeological finds.

Radiometric Measurements in the billions of years are done using a variety of radioactive isotopes.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia
OB

Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't think she knows what a true fundamentalist is.

I kinda think she has me on IGNORE because she thinks I lead the way in derailing threads, and she must be jealous.

Either that, or she knows I'd take her to task on what a real fundamentalist is.

But for the record, she throws that term "fundamentalist" around like some throw the term "Protestant" around.

If they think Hitler was a Christian; don't take it too personally if they think you're a fundamentalist.

I'm knew here but she must be following me if you can do that she pops up wherever I go. I don't really understand why these people feel the need to come here and ridicule believers about our beliefs but it is amusing to talk to them. She doesn't talk though she just attacks and most of the time makes no sense.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The thesis of the stream is the idea that creationist organizations (e.g. professional creationists) have spent decades training their followers to distrust science and science professionals. In the context of evolution-denial, it's theoretically not a big deal. In the context of the current pandemic and vaccines, however, science distrust is causing real harm.

From my experience the distrust pertaining to the vaccines have been aimed more towards the government than science. It’s natural for people to be skeptical about any new vaccine that hasn’t had several years of exposure and testing.

 

[BPPLEE]

The sources listed in this thread give error bars. Expressing the known uncertainty in a measurement is what error bars are for. Do you have any valid reasons to reject their work?

I'm sure they've figured it out, give or take a few million years but what difference does that make? It is all based on assumptions. They could be right but in the end no one knows for sure. There are those who try to reconcile billions of years with the Biblical account I have no quarrel with someone who believes differently than I do. I'm just saying I don't know. No one knows for sure.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm sure they've figured it out, give or take a few million years but what difference does that make? It is all based on assumptions. They could be right but in the end no one knows for sure. There are those who try to reconcile billions of years with the Biblical account I have no quarrel with someone who believes differently than I do. I'm just saying I don't know. No one knows for sure.

What difference does it make?

You are here throwing doubt and shade on those measurements beyond the stated error bars. You've given no reasons why anyone should reject those values, at all. Just an attack on a scientific result for what seems to be ideological reasons. Instead you label it "assumptions" and give no critique of the "assumptions". Nothing.

[As to Genesis, just remember that the scribes that edited it into its current form about 2500 years ago didn't know the Earth was old, so they had no reason to try and reconcile it with reality.]

 

[BPPLEE]

What difference does it make?

You are here throwing doubt and shade on those measurements beyond the stated error bars. You've given no reasons why anyone should reject those values, at all. Just an attack on a scientific result for what seems to be ideological reasons. Instead you label it "assumptions" and give no critique of the "assumptions". Nothing.

[As to Genesis, just remember that the scribes that edited it into its current form about 2500 years ago didn't know the Earth was old, so they had no reason to try and reconcile it with reality.]

I didn't say you had to reject them. They may be right. But no one knows for sure. You are free to believe what you want. I'm skeptical.

 

[Astrid]

What difference does it make?

You are here throwing doubt and shade on those measurements beyond the stated error bars. You've given no reasons why anyone should reject those values, at all. Just an attack on a scientific result for what seems to be ideological reasons. Instead you label it "assumptions" and give no critique of the "assumptions". Nothing.

[As to Genesis, just remember that the scribes that edited it into its current form about 2500 years ago didn't know the Earth was old, so they had no reason to try and reconcile it with reality.]

I thought its Gods inerrant word

 

[BPPLEE]

I thought its Gods inerrant word

It doesn't say how old the earth is. If you can find the verse that does please share it with me

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't say you had to reject them. They may be right. But no one knows for sure. You are free to believe what you want. I'm skeptical.

Reason-free skepticism isn't some exalted position, it's just tarted up rejection.

You are strongly implying that the science behind the geological age of the Earth is inadequate, but won't say why. That is an insult to the professionalism of all scientists, especially geologists. If you have scientific reasons to challenge the result or measurement or analysis -- state them. If you don't then stop making your hollow "skeptical" rejection.

(If you'd said "the bible says it's 6000 years old" or "as an OT7 I know Xenu visited the Earth 95 billion years ago" and you take it on faith, I wouldn't care so much. [Yes, I'd say the science showed otherwise, but what else could we do if you have an ideological position.] That's not what is going on here, or at least not what you claim is going on here.)

 

[BPPLEE]

Reason-free skepticism isn't some exalted position, it's just tarted up rejection.

You are strongly implying that the science behind the geological age of the Earth is inadequate, but won't say why. That is an insult to the professionalism of all scientists, especially geologists. If you have scientific reasons to challenge the result or measurement or analysis -- state them. If you don't then stop making your hollow "skeptical" rejection.

(If you'd said "the bible says it's 6000 years old" or "as an OT7 I know Xenu visited the Earth 95 billion years ago" and you take it on faith, I wouldn't care so much. [Yes, I'd say the science showed otherwise, but what else could we do if you have an ideological position.] That's not what is going on here, or at least not what you claim is going on here.)

The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Why is it okay to be skeptical of the Bible but geology must be accepted without question? Am I not allowed to be skeptical?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Why is it okay to be skeptical of the Bible but geology must be accepted without question? Am I not allowed to be skeptical?

That's NOT what I said. You are NOT giving REASONS for your geological dating skepticism. That is all I seek here.

[I'm not skeptical of the bible. I know it exists. I have one around here somewhere...]

 

[BPPLEE]

That's NOT what I said. You are NOT giving REASONS for your geological dating skepticism. That is all I seek here.

[I'm not skeptical of the bible. I know it exists. I have one around here somewhere...]

Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.