08 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYou can search this site and go back years and you'll always see me do that!
It seems you can at least consider the possibility the world is more than 10,000 years old, using the word if as your second word.
RJ's neurons have turned to concrete, unable to change.
I maintain I do not know how old the earth is, could be billions of years old
or thousands, and I lean towards thousands.
Kelly
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYou throw in dates on how old certain things are as if they are facts. You should
I am not talking about just writing. There are cave drawings 25,000 years old and there were certainly at least neandertals around then but no drawings or depictions of them or wars with them or anything.
Creationists would say that adam and eve already knew how to write when they were forced out of eden since they learned the ways of the world when she ate the apple.
to at least being honest about say, "they have been dated 25K years old" you
don't know how old they really are. If you can find some writing that has been
in place for over 6K of historic human recorded history that'd be a find, but to
say this "X" whatever "X" is older is only agreeing with your dating methods
once again without entertaining they could be completely wrong as well.
Kelly
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayAnything is possible in that regard but there has been years of validating experiments showing the veracity of C14 dating, since they know N14 is converted by cosmic rays to C14 on a steady basis and they know by watching how fast C14 converts. If you go to a lab that measures that stuff, they can take a fresh sample and put it in a jar inside a box in a lab where no new C14 is being made and see the conversion directly, a tiny bit goes each year. There have been long term studies on that effect.
You throw in dates on how old certain things are as if they are facts. You should
to at least being honest about say, "they have been dated 25K years old" you
don't know how old they really are. If you can find some writing that has been
in place for over 6K of historic human recorded history that'd be a find, but to
say this "X" whatever "X" is older i ...[text shortened]... methods
once again without entertaining they could be completely wrong as well.
Kelly
Believe me, if that effect were to be refuted, some scientist would make his lifelong reputation on the refutation of that effect but nobody has refuted it yet.
Creationists can claim, make charges and such but don't forget, they are not interested in doing actual research, they have an agenda to destroy a science, which they do not do through scientific experimentation, they do it through distorting the data or just saying, that ain't right, and with political court battle attacks on evolution and such and C14 dating is in the way so out it goes as a real science in creationists eyes.
Its funny how these sciences can be poo poo'd by creationists when the science involved uses the exact same scientific method used by geologists, microbiologists, math experts, psychologists, atmosphere sciences, chemistry, etc., all those sciences use exactly the same scientific method to produce results, make predictions and generate new scientific information but only those that get in the way of creationists are called false, dishonest, big conspiracy and all that.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseIt isn't the dating that can be verified real time I have issue with, it is when we
Anything is possible in that regard but there has been years of validating experiments showing the veracity of C14 dating, since they know N14 is converted by cosmic rays to C14 on a steady basis and they know by watching how fast C14 converts. If you go to a lab that measures that stuff, they can take a fresh sample and put it in a jar inside a box in a la ...[text shortened]... that get in the way of creationists are called false, dishonest, big conspiracy and all that.
start projecting what we know is true in the here and now and make claims
the samething holds true throughout all (time) as if we KNOW how long that
has been going on where I start having issues. Being able to see well close
up does not mean you'll be able to with the same eyes see far off, the same is
true with dating methods, getting it right during short durations does not mean
the same methods will work for longer periods of time.
Kelly
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayProof the Earth is about 6000 years old:
It isn't the dating that can be verified real time I have issue with, it is when we
start projecting what we know is true in the here and now and make claims
the samething holds true throughout all (time) as if we KNOW how long that
has been going on where I start having issues. Being able to see well close
up does not mean you'll be able to with the s ...[text shortened]... g short durations does not mean
the same methods will work for longer periods of time.
Kelly
A modern young David slaying the Goliath of evolution.
08 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayC14 does not work for anything much older than 50,000 years but in that time frame, it has been proven to be fairly accurate, within 10 % anyway. That is all you need basically for stuff 50,000 years old, but it is not the only method used, one other being verification of the strata the object was buried in.
It isn't the dating that can be verified real time I have issue with, it is when we
start projecting what we know is true in the here and now and make claims
the samething holds true throughout all (time) as if we KNOW how long that
has been going on where I start having issues. Being able to see well close
up does not mean you'll be able to with the s ...[text shortened]... g short durations does not mean
the same methods will work for longer periods of time.
Kelly
If you can see there were X amount of layers built up year by year, the fundamental physics was the same 50,000 years ago as now so if a layer is built up once per year then we count 50,000 layers such as in ice core data, we know when that ice was built. We also correlate the temperature of the individual ice layer with temperatures going on at the time too.
If you get extremely accurate temperature readings of the ice, for instance, measurements to within 1/1000ths of a degree, it turns out the history of past temperatures leaves its mark on the ice sheets because a temperature difference of a few thousands of a degree does not transmit to another layer but stays in that layer for thousands of years, so one layer may be 5 thousands of a degree hotter than the one next to it and we know that means the temperature was warmer by some amount, maybe only 2 degrees but the small change in the ice core stays around for thousands of years.
That is only one example where multiple dating techniques are used and if they roughly match we know they are probably right.
They do not depend on just one technique to measure back in deep time.
08 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are still believing the lies of Satan. Carbon 14 dating is not good for dating anything back to 50,000 years. It is only good for dating certain things that have carbon in them and that is good for only a few thousand years and only if the assuptions are correct. Sorry. Fail.
C14 does not work for anything much older than 50,000 years but in that time frame, it has been proven to be fairly accurate, within 10 % anyway. That is all you need basically for stuff 50,000 years old, but it is not the only method used, one other being verification of the strata the object was buried in.
If you can see there were X amount of layers ...[text shortened]... ey are probably right.
They do not depend on just one technique to measure back in deep time.
P.S. Proof the Earth is about 6000 years old:
09 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaythousands or billions (?)
You can search this site and go back years and you'll always see me do that!
I maintain I do not know how old the earth is, could be billions of years old
or thousands, and I lean towards thousands.
Kelly
What about millions or hundreds of thousands?
09 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsMan i thought I was slow ....
You are still believing the lies of Satan. Carbon 14 dating is not good for dating anything back to 50,000 years. It is only good for dating certain things that have carbon in them and that is good for only a few thousand years and only if the assuptions are correct. Sorry. Fail.
P.S. Proof the Earth is about 6000 years old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72h2R4FO0k
You really didn't follow any of sonhous' points have you?
I suspect you lost yourself when you clouded the whole thing with your "lies of Satan" crap. I think you dont allow information to be processed at all because you have already dismissed it as the work of "satan" , a deciever.
Now this is true with nearly everyone, ie they aren't likely to want to listen to sources that are known to be deceitful (deceptive) . Except in this case there is no deception except for your own. You have just deceived yourself and sabotaged any chance of you understanding any further because of a fictional character that has no power except that which is given to it . (ironically , mainly by christians)
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelProof the Earth is about 6000 years old:
Man i thought I was slow ....
You really didn't follow any of sonhous' points have you?
I suspect you lost yourself when you clouded the whole thing with your "lies of Satan" crap. I think you dont allow information to be processed at all because you have already dismissed it as the work of "satan" , a deciever.
Now this is true with nearly e ...[text shortened]... that has no power except that which is given to it . (ironically , mainly by christians)
No refutation yet. Still waiting.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindswow, your most recent source is 1971. pretty amazing considering your brain is still in the stone age.
What Ailed Old Neanderthal Man?
In 1912 the famous Piltdown skull was found in a gravel bed in southern England by Charles Dawson. It created a sensation since it clearly was a creature halfway between man and beast. Evolutionists were ecstatic.
While a few scientists were skeptical, it was accepted by scholarly opinion throughout the world. It is n ...[text shortened]... he obvious truth that Neanderthal man was fully human.
http://www.rae.org/ch08tud.html
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by menace71written language is a technological advance that was created out of necessity due to trade between tribes that established agriculture and developed the concept of land ownership. it is not surprising to find that it was invented a short time after the invention of agriculture.
I will flip that around on you and ask why is written language only approx 6k years old ? If homo-Habilis and Neandertals and whatever other sub groups were around for 100K years ? My contention is that written language should go back further than 6K years.
PS: I'm not sure where I stand on this as I'm not sure I believe in a young earth for scient ...[text shortened]... no satisfactory answers or theories as of now to the age of the universe being young.
Manny
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindseasily proven wrong by linguistics knowledge.
Listen, for one thing, those cave drawings would not last 25,000 years. They would probably have all been faded away. There is no proof that they are 25,000 years old. That is only speculation based on wrong assumptions.
P.S. Adam and Eve already had a lauguage they used to talk with God. And it was God who confounded the language, so we have all the ...[text shortened]... anguages we have today. But we can still translate one languague into another, if we learn how.
languages follow migration patterns of humans and they are categorized according to their similarities, which incidentally follow according to the migrations of tribes.