WizardofOz
New member
:thumb: Well said.
I believe the earth to be several billion years. I am open to compelling evidence to the contrary.
toldailytopic: How old is the earth?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
:thumb: Well said.
I believe the earth to be several billion years. I am open to compelling evidence to the contrary.
genuineoriginal
New member
You actually used the conspiracy strawman?
:rotfl:
No one thinks it is a conspiracy by scientists.
They are only fooling themselves the same way you are fooling yourself.
Because of their beliefs, they lose all objectivity on the subject and act under a presumption that the earth is billions of years old and make up ways to prove it, ie. they manufacture evidence based on a misinterpretation of data that can support their preconceptions and ignore data that says otherwise.
It is not a conspiracy, it is a collective delusion.
alwight
New member
So that would mean then that scientists and me are all a bit thick?
While otoh most YEC however are free to believe in a literal Genesis version of creation happily unencumbered by any annoying inconvenient real world facts and evidence.
This 10-minute video gives a brief explanation of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth:
| The Age of Our World Made Easy | |
genuineoriginal
New member
So that would mean then that scientists and me are all a bit thick?
Most scientists are self-deluded.
You are a bit thick.
alwight
New member
Such an opinion would worry me more if it actually came from someone whose opinion I respected and could support it from real evidence. :chew:
genuineoriginal
New member
I know you have no respect for believers, but the evidence that you are a bit thick is in your posts.
alwight
New member
I have plenty of respect for believers who do not deny physical reality and reasonable evidence simply to support a literal Genesis. If you'd actually read more of what I say then perhaps you would know that.
They are neither stupid nor dishonest. They are biased by uniformitarianism. Radioactive decay is constant today. It remains constant no matter what variable you subject it to. Scientists take that and think it must have always been so. They are unwilling to consider the possibility of a faster speed of light which would make the faster decay possible. Are they stupid for that? No. They have reasons for thinking it is impossible. The biggest one of the reasons is the theories of relativity. They have come up with a few problems they think would result from a faster speed of light, but from what I have read of those problems, they don't seem like they are truly problems. It just hasn't been thought through enough which is neither stupid nor dishonest. 4.5 billions years is fits in nicely with evolution and therefore there isn't much reason for them to doubt the radiometric basis for it.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That was just uncalled for GO. There's plenty of believers here who don't ascribe to a young earth and Alwight is hardly rabid in his conversations or disrespectful to others anyway. Asserting without evidence is hardly exactly intelligent is it?
lain:The only evidence science has for an earth in the 4.5 billion year range is radiometric dating. What evidence is there for a less than one million year earth or for any exact age? There are a few possibilities. How long does it take a mountain range to form? How long does it take to wear one down? If you go by how long it takes to build one at today's rates, the earth is very old indeed, but I'm not sure you could make it to the 4.5 billion year mark that way.
If you go by measured rates of sedimentation, the earth is much younger than that figure. I don't have the figures but there is a guy who claims to have them. From what he said, the rates of sedimentation for equal periods of time from the archean to the holocene, show slower and slower rates of sedimentation going from the oldest units to the youngest units.
This evidence here would show that the measured ages are inflated and that inflation grows larger the further you go back in time.
What age would I give to the earth? I can't see any reason other than radiometric dating for it to be any older than a million years.
alwight
New member
So how exactly do we rationally work out the age of the Earth if not by what it seems are reasonable constants and projecting backward using current rates of change, and also by cross checking results with various other different dating methods?
Do we simply chose a date because it fits nicely with our own personal preconceived religious views or do we rely on what real evidence and professional science tends to indicate?
genuineoriginal
New member
So, you have plenty of respect for believers that compromize their faith?
Like YOU said, you are a bit thick.
He first brought in the "global conspiracy by scientists" strawman, then when I tried to correct his gross mischaracterization of what I said, he said that makes him a bit thick. Who am I to say his self assessment is wrong when I think he nailed it on the head?That was just uncalled for GO. There's plenty of believers here who don't ascribe to a young earth and Alwight is hardly rabid in his conversations or disrespectful to others anyway. Asserting without evidence is hardly exactly intelligent is it?
alwight
New member
I suggest you look at that "potholer" video on the previous page and see how different dating methods can produce similar results. But if you have a doctrine that trumps it all then I'd be flogging a dead horse I suspect.
You can't use current rates of change to project time back that far. You cannot assume things have always been as they are today. There are no other dating methods to cross check things older than a few million years. There are methods to cross check for relatively younger items and they do match but that could be because the rate of decay could have decayed itself over time to where the more recently aged items have an accurate radiometric date as a result of decays rates close to that of today.
Your latter comment only applies to those who insist on a 6000 year old earth. I don't, in fact it's quite impossible. All I am saying there is no good reason to believe it is as old as 4.5 billions years besides radiometry. Things such as rates of mountain building and erosion do not demand such an old age. In fact, there are other evidence such as ocean salt or other chemistries that suggest a much younger age.....and I mean not anywhere in the ballpark of 4.5 billion years.
As I said earlier, there are different dating methods that can produce similar results for relatively young ages. Show me a method that corroborates 4.5 billion years and I'm all ears.
alwight
New member
I hope what I actually said will be read by others from the actual posts rather than from your own dishonest mis-characterisation here.
I realise that having no actual real evidence or science supporting your beliefs must make you bitter and twisted so I'll try to make allowances.