namelesstavern.net

gidan wrote:

Narrock wrote:

I know you're one of the 4004 BC earth created crowd. However, to believe that, you have to ignore literally mountains of geologic and physical evidence against the concept. Likewise believing in a global flood, etc. etc. etc. That, to me at least, is being close-minded to reality.

I know that was directed at Donnel, but I need to put in my 2cp. Well, I'll take that with a grain of salt, since Radiometric and Carbon dating has been proven to be extremely inaccurate over and over and over again. And no, I don't want to get into a copy-n-paste contest.

Its been said over and over that dating methods are not perfect. However when you date the same object over and over with different methods and you get roughly the same answer, you more or less know its atleast close. We are not talking perfect but withing thousands of years. If you date a rock to 100,000,000 years old with Radiometric dating using multiple different isotopes, and they are all withing the same say 10,000 years, then the most likely case is that the rock is roughly 100,000,000 years old. Sure you can try and make cases that radioative decay isn't constant but its very unlikely that all the different elements were breaking down at verying spped but just happened to all match up when the test was run. Possible? sure, but very unlikely.

The major loophole in your argument is that any dating test is inaccurate after after the 4000 year mark, only to be moderately accurate before that time.

So they all just happen to be inacturate by the same amount?

gidan wrote:So they all just happen to be inacturate by the same amount?

Exactly!

Narrock wrote:

gidan wrote:So they all just happen to be inacturate by the same amount?

Exactly!

Now, thats closed minded.

Thon wrote:science pwns jesus

I enjoy a jewish mass more than I do a catholic mass and I am catholic.

I just like the hebrew singing. It sounds crazy. I don't know how those guys tweak their voices like that.

Ginzburgh wrote:I enjoy a jewish mass more than I do a catholic mass and I am catholic.

I just like the hebrew singing. It sounds crazy. I don't know how those guys tweak their voices like that.

testicular binding?

I know that was directed at Donnel, but I need to put in my 2cp. Well, I'll take that with a grain of salt, since Radiometric and Carbon dating has been proven to be extremely inaccurate over and over and over again. And no, I don't want to get into a google copy-n-paste contest.

Actually, Mindia, other radiometric dating methods are completely different from Carbon 14 dating. Carbon-14 dating only works on stuff that was once alive, and gets more and more unreliable the older something is, though the real figure for increasing inaccuracy is about the 10,000 year mark, not 4,000. Also, yes, the data is subject to corruption by deposition of later carbon, etc.

Other radiometric dating systems work ONLY on igneous rocks. They have nothing whatsoever to do with life itself, and you can't even use them on sedimentary rocks of any kind, you must use them entirely on igneous rock. Indeed, most of these don't work well on anything YOUNGER than about 1,000,000 years. There are large numbers of these, including the Rubidium-Strontium, Samarium-Neodymium, Lutetium-Hafnium, and Rhenium-Osmium methods. When we want the most accurate dating of rocks, several of these methods are used at once.

Now, please also be aware we have other methods of dating beyond Carbon-14 or other Radiometric dating methods. The simplest one being tree rings, and that goes back a good 10,000 + years. What you do is you take cores from living trees, and just count rings, and I doubt you'd claim that it's exactly difficult to count tree rings. Then, you take old, dead trees from the same area, core them, and match up ring widths. Say you have a 1,000 year old tree, and a dead one next to it. You core both, and find the spot where the rings of the older tree match up with the younger one. If, say, the first ring of the old tree matches the 500th ring of the younger tree, and every single other ring lines up after that, then you know the old tree died 500 years ago, and you can know how long ago it was born by counting the rings beyond where the rings from the new tree stopped. Using tree rings methods like that, we have been able to trace back to more than 10,000 years ago. Bristlecone pines are great for this, as they live 4000+ years each.

Beyond that, there's yet another way we know the earth is older. Ice cores, from places like Greenland. You can actually count layers in the ice, each layer being 1 year's snowfall onto the pack. We can cross-check this by looking for things like fallout from major volcanic events, and find things like Mt. St. Helen's ash in 1 layer, but no others, etc. These layers go back a VERY long time. Tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. No radiometric techniques nessary, just counting.

-Arlos

Eye rolling emoticon inc!

arlos wrote:

I know that was directed at Donnel, but I need to put in my 2cp. Well, I'll take that with a grain of salt, since Radiometric and Carbon dating has been proven to be extremely inaccurate over and over and over again. And no, I don't want to get into a google copy-n-paste contest.

Actually, Mindia, other radiometric dating methods are completely different from Carbon 14 dating. Carbon-14 dating only works on stuff that was once alive, and gets more and more unreliable the older something is, though the real figure for increasing inaccuracy is about the 10,000 year mark, not 4,000. Also, yes, the data is subject to corruption by deposition of later carbon, etc.

Other radiometric dating systems work ONLY on igneous rocks. They have nothing whatsoever to do with life itself, and you can't even use them on sedimentary rocks of any kind, you must use them entirely on igneous rock. Indeed, most of these don't work well on anything YOUNGER than about 1,000,000 years. There are large numbers of these, including the Rubidium-Strontium, Samarium-Neodymium, Lutetium-Hafnium, and Rhenium-Osmium methods. When we want the most accurate dating of rocks, several of these methods are used at once.

Now, please also be aware we have other methods of dating beyond Carbon-14 or other Radiometric dating methods. The simplest one being tree rings, and that goes back a good 10,000 + years. What you do is you take cores from living trees, and just count rings, and I doubt you'd claim that it's exactly difficult to count tree rings. Then, you take old, dead trees from the same area, core them, and match up ring widths. Say you have a 1,000 year old tree, and a dead one next to it. You core both, and find the spot where the rings of the older tree match up with the younger one. If, say, the first ring of the old tree matches the 500th ring of the younger tree, and every single other ring lines up after that, then you know the old tree died 500 years ago, and you can know how long ago it was born by counting the rings beyond where the rings from the new tree stopped. Using tree rings methods like that, we have been able to trace back to more than 10,000 years ago. Bristlecone pines are great for this, as they live 4000+ years each.

Beyond that, there's yet another way we know the earth is older. Ice cores, from places like Greenland. You can actually count layers in the ice, each layer being 1 year's snowfall onto the pack. We can cross-check this by looking for things like fallout from major volcanic events, and find things like Mt. St. Helen's ash in 1 layer, but no others, etc. These layers go back a VERY long time. Tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. No radiometric techniques nessary, just counting.

-Arlos

The counting method would appear to be much more accurate.

arlos


goddidit

didn't you know that?

if god wanted shit to test at 10k years old god would do it that way


you can't escape the goddidit "logic"

The counting method would appear to be much more accurate.

So you're willing to accept the fact that we have significant scientific evidence that shows that the earth must be significantly older than 6000 years, apart from all the radiometric evidence you don't buy?

-Arlos

Ginzburgh wrote:I enjoy a jewish mass more than I do a catholic mass and I am catholic.

I just like the hebrew singing. It sounds crazy. I don't know how those guys tweak their voices like that.

You can always follow Madonna into Kaballah zen

arlos wrote:

The counting method would appear to be much more accurate.

So you're willing to accept the fact that we have significant scientific evidence that shows that the earth must be significantly older than 6000 years, apart from all the radiometric evidence you don't buy?

-Arlos

I never said the earth was only 6000 years old. And no, I don't have to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old to believe in God/Jesus/creationism. I heard some pastors talk about our earth being 10,000 years old, and I also heard some on TV that believe the earth is much older than that. Because of the fallicies with our current dating technology, my mind really isn't made up yet on how old I think the earth actually is.

Wait...what about dinosaurs? Aren't those millions of years old?

Ginzburgh wrote:Wait...what about dinosaurs? Aren't those millions of years old?

We don't know, actually. There's also a theory on dragons having existed too, but their bodies contained acids which dissolved even their own bones after they died, therefore leaving no trace evidence of their existence.

What about dinosaur bones they are embedded in the earth?

HAHA I stumbled across a website that claimed dinosaurs were on the arc, were actually much smaller then what we think they are and that they died out only about 1000 years ago.

Wish I could remember the damn site.

gidan wrote:HAHA I stumbled across a website that claimed dinosaurs were on the arc, were actually much smaller then what we think they are and that they died out only about 1000 years ago.

Wish I could remember the damn site.

google it. That would be funny reading.

You know how we date those, Ginz? You can't date them directly, they're far far far too old for Carbon 14 dating to even be applicable. You can't date the rock they're in directly either, because you'll only find remains in sedimentary rock. (Igneous rock only gets added directly to the surface via volcanoes, and a flowing river of lava wouldn't leave much in the way of dinosaur parts behind after it rolled over a dead one).

What you do is look in the rock strata above and below the layer you found the dinosaur parts in, and find igneous layers THERE. You then use the various radiometric dating methods to date the igneous rock on both sides. That's why when you see dinosaur bone ages, they're always something like "These bones are 120-150 million years old", because that's the gap between the ages of the dateable rock above and below the layer with those bones.

Mindia, I encourage you to actually look via google at how some of the radiometric dating methods work for testing igneous rocks. Do be aware that none of them will work properly on young rocks, they only work on stuff a million years old or older, or so. Therefore, the supposed debunking of their reliability by testing the methods on brand new rocks don't apply; the methods were never intended to be used on new rocks whatsoever. It'd be like using a clock with just an hour hand to figure out how fast a bullet is moving.

-Arlos

Mindia, I encourage you to actually look via google at how some of the radiometric dating methods work for testing igneous rocks.

Satanism!

arlos wrote:You know how we date those, Ginz? You can't date them directly, they're far far far too old for Carbon 14 dating to even be applicable. You can't date the rock they're in directly either, because you'll only find remains in sedimentary rock. (Igneous rock only gets added directly to the surface via volcanoes, and a flowing river of lava wouldn't leave much in the way of dinosaur parts behind after it rolled over a dead one).

What you do is look in the rock strata above and below the layer you found the dinosaur parts in, and find igneous layers THERE. You then use the various radiometric dating methods to date the igneous rock on both sides. That's why when you see dinosaur bone ages, they're always something like "These bones are 120-150 million years old", because that's the gap between the ages of the dateable rock above and below the layer with those bones.

Mindia, I encourage you to actually look via google at how some of the radiometric dating methods work for testing igneous rocks. Do be aware that none of them will work properly on young rocks, they only work on stuff a million years old or older, or so. Therefore, the supposed debunking of their reliability by testing the methods on brand new rocks don't apply; the methods were never intended to be used on new rocks whatsoever. It'd be like using a clock with just an hour hand to figure out how fast a bullet is moving.

-Arlos

In all honesty Arlos, I have googled this many times in the past. I also took a college Geology class with lab. I have a hard time believing some of the dates. In addition to that, I have seen website after website (and not just Christian biased websites) that have shown our dating methods to be inaccurate as hell.

Ginzburgh wrote:

Mindia, I encourage you to actually look via google at how some of the radiometric dating methods work for testing igneous rocks.

Satanism!

Trollism!

that have shown our dating methods to be inaccurate as hell.

Define inaccurate? There is a big difference between 6,000 years and 100 million years.