No ones forcing you to read or comment, Shawn.

Bis, the earth is old. There's no evidence that it is young.

All I'm doing is stating I believe more information is needed to make a determination on the issue, and until that time comes, I'm remaining neutral.

Why do you have a problem with that, BL?

I dont have a problem with you saying you don't know. I have a problem with you saying young is as likely as old. It isn't. There's tons of credible evidence for an old earth. There is no credible evidence for a young earth.

When I say I'm staying neutral, it is BECAUSE I think a young earth is as likely as an old earth.

You have a problem with that because you are a sheep who blindly believes whatever the current trend is.  You think current science knows it all. If you lived many years ago, you'd have objected to anyone who said the earth wasn't the center of the universe for the same reasons.

Not true. The scientific evidence points to an old earth. Just like science pointed to a heliocentric universe, a round earth, etc.

You're saying, "science is at odds with my religious beliefs, therefore science is flawed."

I see it differently. I think the scientific evidence is insufficient to determine a conclusion on the age of the universe, the earth, etc. There are plenty of good ideas, but I don't want to follow them blindly and don't think I can follow them completely without further information we don't have right now.

None of it has to do with my personal religious beliefs. I've just done the same thing I always do - I look at both (or all) sides of an issue and then make my own determination as to where I stand. I don't base my position on what anyone else says is right. I don't look to be different on purpose, either. My position falls where it does based upon my own examination of the facts.

However, if my position is contrary to what is popular right now, is trending, is the majority, or whatever, I'm not going to change it just to fit in. I stick to my guns unless I'm given a really good reason not to do so. You're probably going to be unable to provide that on this issue (it's 99.9% certain you won't sway me on this) because I've looked over a great deal of information about the topic and am not convinced either side is worth joining at this point.

So I'm not sure why you continue onward. I'm not even opposed to your position, and yet for some reason that offends you. Apparently in your little world, no one is allowed to make up their own mind on any issue and everyone has to agree with you or they are "wrong".

I'm not offended. It's just factually incorrect to asert that there isn't enough evidence to make a determination.

There's a ton of credible, peer reviewed evidence of an old earth. There is none for a young earth.

Posted by bistiza on 9/10/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Here, BL, just so you can't say I didn't provide facts, I'll give you an example of how radiocarbon dating is not correct because it is based upon assumptions which aren't always true.

Here you go:

A very common rock that contains U-238 is granite. If we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much U-238 and Pb-206 the crystal contains. In order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information.

First, we need to know how fast the U-238 turns into Pb-206. The half-life gives us this value, provided the half-life has never altered during the lifetime of the zircon crystal.

Second, we need to know how much Pb-206 there was in the original rock. This is clearly impossible. It is usually assumed, without justification, that the original quantity of Pb-206 in the rock was zero

Third, we need to be sure that no lead compounds have been added to or taken away from the rock. Given that lead compounds are fairly soluble in water, this is something that we cannot be very sure of.

Using the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1.5 billion years.

The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each alpha-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong. Remember these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.

You should note that you are just copy and pasting this from a website

Posted by bistiza on 9/10/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Hey look, this website refutes every argument from your link. So consider your stance ridiculous and defeated.

LOL that website doesn't refute anything said on the site I linked.

Plus, leave it to you to use a link from perhaps the biggest single source of propaganda on the internet, once again showing how you fail to grasp the difference between facts and the purported "facts" of those with an agenda.

I'm bored with you now, BL. Maybe if I get bored with other things later I'll come back and see if you've got anything new to say. I doubt it. More denial and more refusal to admit when you're wrong is all you'll ever say, I'm sure.

I wonder what sort of propaganda a website that is based on the "theory of creation", might have on it.

The only way the half life of an isotope could change over time is if the fundamental laws of physics have changed.  Certainly you can argue that they have, but if that's the case then using any scientific argument to date the earth is just silly.  So if you're going to argue from a scientific perspective, keep it within the realm of reason.  Half-lives are determined by the stability of the nucleus, which for smaller nuclei can be calculated fairly well with modern supercomputers just from our understanding of nuclear particles and forces.  With that being the case, it's really impossible for them to change unless the nature of the fundamental particles or the laws governing them have changed.  Again, that would basically void any scientific argument.

I'm not offended. It's just factually incorrect to asert that there isn't enough evidence to make a determination.

This is the problem I have with what you say - you want to contend that your opinions are facts, and that simply isn't true.

It is YOUR OPINION there is enough evidence to make a determination. It is MY OPINION there isn't.  Neither is a fact.

There's a ton of credible, peer reviewed evidence of an old earth. There is none for a young earth.

Let's address a few things here.

First, everyone has their own opinion on what is considered credible.

Second, "peer reviewed" doesn't hold nearly the water you seem to think it does.  It's not difficult to get people who agree with the current popular theories to agree with your conclusions.  If I were going to be more colloquial, I'd say this: "Peer review" in many cases is basically a giant circle jerk of people telling each other what good ideas they have and evaluating the ideas in light of how much it agrees with their own viewpoint on the matter.

You should note that you are just copy and pasting this from a website

I never said otherwise. BL was just being a whiny baby and refusing to actually visit the website (his way of avoiding the issue, which is part for the course for him) or else I wouldn't have even done that.

I wonder what sort of propaganda a website that is based on the "theory of creation", might have on it.

It may have propaganda on it for all I know. I didn't review the entire site.  I only looked at one page, which contained the information I need, which isn't propaganda any more than any other piece of factual information.

The only way the half life of an isotope could change over time is if the fundamental laws of physics have changed.  Certainly you can argue that they have, but if that's the case then using any scientific argument to date the earth is just silly.  So if you're going to argue from a scientific perspective, keep it within the realm of reason.  Half-lives are determined by the stability of the nucleus, which for smaller nuclei can be calculated fairly well with modern supercomputers just from our understanding of nuclear particles and forces.  With that being the case, it's really impossible for them to change unless the nature of the fundamental particles or the laws governing them have changed.  Again, that would basically void any scientific argument.

And what if this IS, in fact, the case? What if much of what we THINK we know from a scientific standpoint is wrong?

If we base our conclusions on information we thought was correct but is in fact wrong, then it follows logically that those conclusions will not be accurate.

Basically I'm quite skeptical of what modern science thinks it knows. I honestly believe hundreds or thousands of years from now anyone who is remotely educated will LAUGH at our "knowledge" of science now because of how many things we have wrong.

why does it matter who thinks what about how old the earth is? does your life change if the earth is older or younger? no it goes on the same. so all of you just drop it.

You're right, SF, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry I allowed BL to suck me back into a useless debate where he declares his opinion is a fact.

I'll return to only responding to BL to get him to say something entertaining, which is especially grand knowing I'm not the only one who has fun reading his responses in those situations.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/12/2013 1:32:00 AM (view original):
The only way the half life of an isotope could change over time is if the fundamental laws of physics have changed.  Certainly you can argue that they have, but if that's the case then using any scientific argument to date the earth is just silly.  So if you're going to argue from a scientific perspective, keep it within the realm of reason.  Half-lives are determined by the stability of the nucleus, which for smaller nuclei can be calculated fairly well with modern supercomputers just from our understanding of nuclear particles and forces.  With that being the case, it's really impossible for them to change unless the nature of the fundamental particles or the laws governing them have changed.  Again, that would basically void any scientific argument.

This. There is no science based argument for a young earth. Anyone who looks at the evidence and says, "see, it's a toss up," is an idiot.

LOL @ BL

It's nice to see you are continuing your persecution of anyone who is more open-minded than you and is willing to express it (which is anyone who expresses it since you are incredibly closed-minded).

So I'm an idiot, am I? Well, I love you too. *blows kiss*