How do the believers in Common Ancestry 'know' that the earth & universe is millions or billions of years old? They don't. They ASSUME it. There is NO verifiable, testable, or quantifiable method to measure dating for these time frames. They are all fraught with assumptions & speculations, then declared as 'scientific fact'. But what are these 'methods'? I'll list a few: 1. Seasonal rings. We can 'measure' the age of a tree by its rings, so this same logic is used in some glaciers in Greenland, which they declare to be 123,000 years old. Some in antarctica are measured & declared to be 740,000 yrs old. But the central problem with these calculations is the assumption of uniformity. They ASSUME that the earth has always been as it is now, & there were no mitigating circumstances that might have laid down multiple layers in a short time. But we observe evidence of very tempestuous times in the earth's geography. How can we even theorize uniformity? Plate tectonics, volcanic activity, massive flooding, moving glaciers, constantly changing upheaval in the earth's surface makes assuming annual uniformity of ice deposits impossible. There are too many variables to assume that. 2. Radiometric dating. This is done by taking the half life of an isotope, which can be measured by extrapolating backward in time, to when it was full. Greenland seems to be a popular hangout for the old earth Believers, & it was here they 'discovered' rocks they declare to be 1.3 billion years old. They make this assumption thusly: 1. Potassium-40 is trapped in molten lava, & has a half life of 1.3 billion years. 2. Potassium-40 decays into argon-40. 3. by measuring the content of both in the rocks, you can extrapolate their age. They use other radiometric dating, including uranium & carbon-14 in the same way. But this, too if full of assumptions: 1. The countdown started at full. If some isotopes are trapped in molten lava, or laid down in a strata, how can you assume it began at full strength? 2. The decay rate is assumed to be constant. Why? How can this be assumed? The universe is full of drastic changes, passing asteroids, solar & weather changes, magnetic fields, & constant change in the earth's surface. It is a pretty wild assumption to theorize uniformity in deposits or decay of anything. 3. Often, samples taken a few feet apart in a test setting produced wildly different measurements. 4. The amount of the original parent & daughter isotopes in a specimen are unknown. How can you assume 100% parent at the beginning, & 0% daughter isotope? How could that even have happened, in an ancient, ever changing, big banging world of exploding matter? 5. Dating methods are constantly producing impossible results. They pick & choose the ones that 'fit' within their assumed time frame, & toss out the ones that don't. A diamond, for example, is allegedly billions of years old, as is coal. But some have been measured to have carbon-14, which would have completely dissipated according to their own time frame. But problem evidence is just dismissed, while the 'evidence' they like is embraced. 3. Speed of light & expanding universe. Here the argument is that we can see light coming from millions of light years away, so it must have taken millions of years for the light to get here. They also theorize an expanding universe, a la the 'big bang'. All of matter was once, somehow, compressed into the size of a pea, or such, & suddenly exploded. Some scientists have measured this expansion rate, assumed it to be constant in time & space, & declared the age of the universe. a. If the speed of light is absolutely constant (a big assumption) AND the universe is expanding uniformly (another big assumption) the times should match. They don't, unless you juggle them. b. There are other possibilities than a 'big bang', & assumed expansion. c. This presumes light & the expanding universe as a constant. Einstein has suggested some 'relativity' into the mix, which makes these assumptions faulty. 4. Strata. This one is not bandied about as much, but is slipped in from time to time. If a fossil is found in a strata, it is declared to be a certain age, depending on the strata it is found in. But how is the age of the strata determined? By the fossils found in them. They use the conclusion to prove the premise! The assumptions of the age of the strata date the fossils, & the types of fossils date the strata. It is all declared dates, with no empirical methodology to produce it. It is merely circular reasoning, another logical fallacy. Other problems: 1. Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field of the earth has been measured to be ~1400 yrs. If you ASSUME uniformity, the strength of the field would be too powerful if you go back more than 10k yrs or so, & would have vaporized everything on the planet, having the heat & energy of a magnetic star. To solve this, the old earthers suggest 'flipping magnetic poles'. Somehow, for no known reason, & by no known mechanism, the magnetic fields reverse themselves from time to time. They demand uniformity in all their other dating methods, but want some leeway with the magnetic field. 2. Atmospheric helium. When some isotopes decay, they release helium-4. If we assume a zero starting point (as they do with all other radiometric dating processes) then we can measure the helium isotopes in the atmosphere, & extrapolate backwards to when it started. These calculations yield less than 10k yrs, not millions or billions. There are a lot of problems with the dating methods, & declaring millions & billions of years dogmatically as 'fact' is a disservice to the scientific method, & is a return to 'science by decree'. Dating methods are too variable, & based on too many assumptions. It is part of the religion of atheistic naturalism, & is based NOT on scientifically proven facts or valid theories, but decrees & mandates: Assumptions & Assertions. It is just like the 'science' of times past, when the earth was declared to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, & that life spontaneously arose from non-life. It is a mandated & indoctrinated belief, with no scientific evidence. Thinking people with a basic understanding of science & the scientific method should not be fooled by these pseudo scientists. They deceive gullible people with their bluffs & dogmatic declarations, but there is no scientific evidence for the dates that they propose. None of them can stand under scrutiny, & should be classified as speculations, not trumpeted as scientific fact. These phonies do the same with other factual disciplines. They promote global warming, which has no basis in scientific reality, & is just a political agenda masked in pseudo science terms. They also distort economic numbers & fiscal matters. Truth, facts, & evidence are just propaganda tools, & have no meaning to those promoting some ideological narrative. Evolution & naturalism as origins is the same thing. It is pseudo science jargon, presented in an intellectually titillating way, delivered with smug arrogance, masked in techno babble, but with NO empirical, scientific basis. It is a religion.. a philosophy about the origins of life. It has no scientific basis.
Yes.. Geology 101.. I grew up around drillers and oil exploration people..cartographers, chemists. I am not much of a science type.. but I loved looking at core samples in Arabia. People from MIT and GA Tech, Cal Tech etc were pretty much everywhere in our town of 800 people. And even today my brothers are GA Tech grads.. Where did your cut and paste come from?
I always source quotes from other places. These are my own thoughts, from my own education, presented for the entertainment and information to the members of this forum. I will interpret accusations of plagiarism as a compliment.
"Where did your cut and paste come from?" The OP answered your question. If you have evidence that he lied, please present it. Otherwise, your post is slander.
So then present your scientific evidence that refutes all of physics, geology and biology. Because you saying “Nuh uh” doesn’t refute proven science. Lol
Science is based on theories, everyone is welcome to dismiss them, accept them or work to improve them. I draw the line in legislating against others based on science.
Excellent point. And dark matter sounds brilliant compared with The Multiverse (sick). If the physical constants were distant, our universe could not have formed, but others COULD? Huh?
Here we have another thread based in ignorance. Get an education Then why are you so confused? Take for example your comment about constant decay rates. It is statistical. Over long periods of time the rates are constant by the nature of statistics and very large numbers. Apparently this isn't something you can learn by yourself. It requires an understanding of statistics and quantum mechanics. You aren't willing to make the effort to learn the real answers. That is why you don't understand.
I swear I typed "different" and the stupid program mistook early letters for "distant." I touch type and seldom bother to proofread, so....
Outstanding progressive rebuttal! ..so.. you consider YOUR beliefs to be based on 'education!'? But my list of problems with dating methods are 'ignorance!'? ..perhaps you are indoctrinated into a belief system that has no scientific basis, if all you have is indignation and outrage, for 'facts'?
I explained one of your numerous objections based in ignorance. Not only did you not acknowledge it, you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. If you want an education, then get a real education. A do-it-yourself Holiday Inn education only makes it worse. But I know, it's easier to argue with other pseudo intellects on internet forums. I am a real scientist, btw.
The only reason I care is that crackpot do-it-yourself science is part of a greater and deadlier disease that is killing the country. This is directly related to the fact that the most unqualified person to every sit in the WH is tearing the nation apart. It is ALL based in ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills.
This was your rebuttal, mostly steeped in ad hominem. 'Apparrently?' You mean you don't know, or understand the processes of dating methods? You can't learn this, or understand it 'by yourself!', but need Experts to declare truth to you? This is a fallacy.. an argument of authority, PRESUMING that the 'science!' is so complicated that only a few elites can tell us what to believe. I reject this anti-science bias. Science is a method of inquiry, open to ANYONE, who can follow basic methodology. It is NOT an elitist decree, for us to trust. That is indoctrination, not science. Rebut the science, if you dare, and ditch the ad hom laced replies. Otherwise, you are just an indoctrinee, parroting agenda driven propaganda.
If you believe what the bible says on these issues then you must belive the earth is also flat? Just asking since that too is covered in the bible.
?? Where do i refer to ANY religious texts? I have listed scientific, empirical facts, that conflict with the BELIEF in ancient dates. This is not a religious argument. Most religious people, i observe, believe their Indoctrination of the ancient dates belief system.
You project. The indoctrination, bias, and hostility you display only outs you as an ideologue.. a progressive indoctrinee, not an objective, rational, scientific minded person. FACTS, about dating methods, is the topic here, not deranged rants about Trump. Do it yourself science? Seriously? You think 'Science!' is owned by progressive elites, and the rest of us can only submit to their decrees? That is about as 'anti-science' as you can get. Science is a method of discovery, not a club to bully people into submission. Just because you have succumbed to the indoctrination, and closed your mind, does not mean everyone has.
This idea of a young earth and humanity comes from the bible. No one has ever made an issue of it without a source for the idea . Indeed our ideas of its age come from the scienes. I do question the manifestation of life as I dont buy into the idea of dice rolling and randomness being fundamental nor blind mutation giving us all of the diverse species. But cannot believe your take on the age of earth and humanity. You are denying much of science questioning its evidence but the same thing can be done on your beliefs . And you cannot provide reasonable evidence to prove your beliefs. The source of your beliefs is can be found in one place. The bible. Science is not that source. So no flat earth?
To continue on ...It is not my intention to diss you for I have seen how science works due to human nature being involved. Science often moves forward at the pace of tombstones because of the human element. For instance someone creates a hypotheses and then creates experiments to test the hypothesis . And sometimes you will get favorable results that back up the hypothesis but also results that do not. The incoherent results will be set aside to study later on but then never get studied. The positive are used as evidence while the negative is forgotten. Then the man builds his career on his achievement and being human he will become set in his beliefs and has to die before his theory is questioned and the unfavorable results of his experiments are studied. Did you know that flesh was found on a dino stone fossil a few years ago. 65 million year old stone bones? How is that possible? Not sure how science explained this Then artifacts are found in the strata that are not supposed to be there . In undisturbed strata. Then our military interact with craft that are far beyond our tech that should not exist but do. And science does not ewant to touch it! If anyone questions accepted theory as you do the crap hits the fan and others will call you names.
Comments; We have a scientific methodology that guides how we research and present scientific information; anyone is welcome to present opposing information as long as new information can be peer reviewed and arrive at the same results. Science is open-minded to new, and even opposing information, and this can simply be an 'opinion', but in order to change the current scientific position, the opposing new information must go through the same rigorous process and scrutiny as current information. Science and knowledge are a work in process...they are not static! If you believe current information on the origin of Earth is incorrect, you or someone in the scientific community should set about obtaining peer reviewed data. Science will never be concluded here on Political Forum...
