• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Who's going to debate? Even Dawkins now admits maybe God was involved, just not the God of the Bible. Poor fellow is still under delusions about God.
Foolishness. Dawkins has been entirely consistent in his stance. He allows that he does not know with absolute certainty that there wasn't intelligent input during evolution but he is 99.99% sure there wasn't. You reward his acknowledgment that he is not an absolute arbiter of truth by saying he changed his mind? Try to think through the logic of what you claim before posting.
 

marke

Well-known member
Foolishness. Dawkins has been entirely consistent in his stance. He allows that he does not know with absolute certainty that there wasn't intelligent input during evolution but he is 99.99% sure there wasn't. You reward his acknowledgment that he is not an absolute arbiter of truth by saying he changed his mind? Try to think through the logic of what you claim before posting.
If he would just say he has no clue about God and then shut up then there would be no problem. But when he admits he knows nothing about God and then insists the God of the Bible is wicked and does not exist he shows himself to be a bigot and a fool.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
If he would just say he has no clue about God and then shut up then there would be no problem.
No clue means no evidence. No evidence means no justifiable belief.
But when he admits he knows nothing about God and then insists the God of the Bible is wicked and does not exist he shows himself to be a bigot and a fool.
Have you read the old testament?
 

marke

Well-known member
David Hogg or David Monkey?
images


hznulelqh2pbmgmhd9ds
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
You have provided names of people who parrot erroneous old earth narratives, but who fail to prove those narratives are true.
That's a good list of accomplished scientists. They do not parrot anything; they are deep thinkers.

Preachers need no intelligence. They need only charisma and buzz words like a parrot. Why else is it possible for a 12 year old to do as good a job as an adult? There were no teenagers on my list.

You are one to talk. You come off like a stuttering bot. You 1) add a little reference to demons or Satan attributed to to 2) leftist or democratic groups 3) to whom ascribe intentional dishonesty and selfishness. Then when warranted you add either A) a heaping helping of false equivalency and B) the claim that nothing can be differentiated between obvious misdeed of those on your side because absolute proof of a negative statement cannot be achieved about the other side(it never can). You learn nothing and change little from post to post. Congrats.
 

marke

Well-known member
That's a good list of accomplished scientists. They do not parrot anything; they are deep thinkers.

Preachers need no intelligence. They need only charisma and buzz words like a parrot. Why else is it possible for a 12 year old to do as good a job as an adult? There were no teenagers on my list.

You are one to talk. You come off like a stuttering bot. You 1) add a little reference to demons or Satan attributed to to 2) leftist or democratic groups 3) to whom ascribe intentional dishonesty and selfishness. Then when warranted you add either A) a heaping helping of false equivalency and B) the claim that nothing can be differentiated between obvious misdeed of those on your side because absolute proof of a negative statement cannot be achieved about the other side(it never can). You learn nothing and change little from post to post. Congrats.

You are blowing smoke. Some preachers may be unintelligent and some blacks may act like savages but only the stupidest or most hateful rubes will say all preachers are stupid or all blacks are savages.


You can not prove the earth is billions of years old. Nobody can. Those who believe in such old age speculations are like evolutionist cultists who blindly believe the nonsense their cult leaders teach them but cannot prove themselves.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
This thread is about determining the age of the earth. Can we get back on topic?
Why didn't you say so?

Geologists create an estimate of the earth's age by dating some of earth's meteors. Dating rocks on the crust would be problematic because the surface of the earth goes through a cycle that involves going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary states.

Dating is accomplished by measuring radioactive isotopes. The radiation decays at a predictable rate. A thermal ionization mass spectrometer comes in handy.

Your critique?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Why didn't you say so?
You read the OP.
Geologists create an estimate of the earth's age by dating some of earth's meteors.
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine the age of the meteors or the earth.
Dating rocks on the crust would be problematic because the surface of the earth goes through a cycle that involves going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary states.
Evolutionists date earth rocks all of the time. Perhaps you should let them know that they are wrong.
Dating is accomplished by measuring radioactive isotopes. The radiation decays at a predictable rate.
That is an invalid assumption. We know for a fact (with verifiable scientific support) that decay rates are affected by various phenomenon.
A thermal ionization mass spectrometer comes in handy.
Random comments come in handy.
Your critique?
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine that age of the earth. It requires multiple unverifiable assumptions. Some of which are actually falsified.
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
Why didn't you say so?

Geologists create an estimate of the earth's age by dating some of earth's meteors. Dating rocks on the crust would be problematic because the surface of the earth goes through a cycle that involves going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary states.

Dating is accomplished by measuring radioactive isotopes. The radiation decays at a predictable rate. A thermal ionization mass spectrometer comes in handy.

Your critique?
You could not prove a human estimation of the age of a meteor is accurate if your life depended on it. There is no way to date a meteor without relying heavily on at least one unproven assumption. There is no exception.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
You read the OP.

Yes, I did. And, I answered it specifically and completely but you didn't like it. I should have focused on the title only.
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine the age of the meteors or the earth.

Save time in the future and add a "because. . ." after your bald assertions.
Evolutionists date earth rocks all of the time. Perhaps you should let them know that they are wrong.

Dating the earth itself is more complicated.
That is an invalid assumption. We know for a fact (with verifiable scientific support) that decay rates are affected by various phenomenon.

We can rule out whether the adulterating phenomena occurred or not with a high level of certainty.
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine that age of the earth. It requires multiple unverifiable assumptions. Some of which are actually falsified.
The assumptions are satisfied all reasonably. What are all the assumptions according to you?

Any measurement devise or any inferential statistic has assumptions. The assumptions can be readily confirmed.

When your deli weighs up your potato salad, we assume the scale has been calibrated and a tare has been entered so you are not charged for the weight of the container. No reason to forgo your lunch over it.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Yes, I did. And, I answered it specifically and completely but you didn't like it.
You did no such thing.
I should have focused on the title only.
You should have focused on the topic and discussed some science.
Save time in the future and add a "because. . ." after your bald assertions.
No assertions, just facts.
Dating the earth itself is more complicated.
Duh.
We can rule out whether the adulterating phenomena occurred or not with a high level of certainty.
No, we cannot. But nice assertion.
The assumptions are satisfied all reasonably. What are all the assumptions according to you?
There are several well known assumptions.
  • Starting conditions.
  • Rates of decay.
  • No outside influences.
Any measurement devise or any inferential statistic has assumptions. The assumptions can be readily confirmed.
LOL.
When your deli weighs up your potato salad, we assume the scale has been calibrated and a tare has been entered so you are not charged for the weight of the container. No reason to forgo your lunch over it.
Your analogies are funny and do not help your story.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Exactly. Evolutionists insist the miracle of the big bang explains the sudden appearance of the universe from nothing and nowhere, thus refuting the Biblical account.
The theory of evolution has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with how the universe came into being.
 
Top