I actually listen to and review ALL of the evidence I can find, BL, the same as I do on any topic.  I just don't think any of it is convincing enough for me to make a determination regarding the earth's approximate age (relatively old versus relatively young).

You ask how can things happen in just a few thousand years, and yet I can't even say for sure everything you mention actually DID happen at all, let alone what time it may or may not take.

Evolution is a great example. I get micro evolution happens, but there isn't enough evidence to support macro evolution (despite it being touted by "the vast majority of scientists").

We're learning new things about dinosaurs all the time. Same thing with ice ages. The evidence for both can be explained in many possible ways, not all of which requires millions of years.

Noah's ark is a story which may or may not have been based on real events, and has little to do with our present discussion.

No, I'm asking what evidence you would need to see to believe that the earth is billions of years old?

Like how you accept that the earth is round because we have pictures of it from space even though the pictures could be fake. You assume they aren't. You take what you have been told by experts as fact and don't question it.

I'm curious, do you think Noah's Ark actually happened?

Posted by bistiza on 9/13/2013 4:10:00 PM (view original):
greeny,

I was merely looking for the information I needed and did not care what website it came from once I found it.

I think BL is attacking the website because his attacks on the information itself have been unsuccessful, he knows it, and so he'll try to grasp onto anything he can. He's done that before when he's been losing badly in an argument with me. Get him backed into a corner and BL is like a wild animal - he just gets more stubborn and aggressive.

The information I provided is illustrating the point that radiocarbon dating methods are based upon assumptions which can lead to incorrect conclusions.

I think its unwise to "go with what the vast majority of scientists believe" unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Most people will believe anything "the vast majority of scientists believe" without so much as a second thought and that means they can't think critically and reach conclusions on their own.

Yes, following "the vast majority of scientists" without examining the information for yourself IS being a sheep. I'm not saying you can't determine anything for sure. With some things there is a near uniform consensus, such as "the earth is round". On most things, however, your "vast majority of scientists" have theories based on what they think they know, and that is a great recipe for being wrong, as they are later found to be on many occasions.

Seriously if you don't believe me take a good look at the field of quantum physics and how far it has come even since the days of Albert Einstein. He got a lot of things right that people before him got wrong, and new things are being learned on a regular basis. That happens in EVERY field in science.

If something doesn't fully make sense, I'd rather without making a judgment than guess and hope.

So you dont think that my arguement of groups of scientists who have an obvious objective in mind will pick and choose pieces of evidence to prove their theories has no merit?

Truly its hard to know what groups of scientists dont have any "marching orders" but to me "young Earth scientists" have a clear and ever-present bias.  Going with that assumption I simply cant take any of their research at face value.

Lastly, when it comes to trivial things I am not going to invest tens if not hundreds of hours pouring over naked data to get a reasonably sound (albeit very amateur) analyses of my very own.  I dont really care how old the Earth is.  So I will listen to the predominant opinion among learned people.  Doesnt make me a sheep, it makes me lazy at worst, but more then likely puts me in the dont care enough to investigate further camp.  You can call them (us) sheeple all you want, but if you are going to do that then every single human is a sheeple.  Because there isnt one single one of us who investigates every single one of their thoughts before coming up with a conclusion or at least an opinion.

Seriously if you don't believe me take a good look at the field of quantum physics and how far it has come even since the days of Albert Einstein. He got a lot of things right that people before him got wrong, and new things are being learned on a regular basis. That happens in EVERY field in science.

This is the trap people fall into when they prefer to mistrust science.  It's easy to confuse consensus with science, and it's easy to over-emphasize the significance of things that science got "wrong" in the past.  Yes, in the last 100 years we've proven that all of what was called physics in the 18th and 19th centuries was "wrong."  But for virtually everything to which those scientists were applying their physics, their approximations were right.  Yes, quantum mechanics make classical physics an approximation.  But the majority of modern science is still done within the classical approximation, because even in many cases dealing with atoms it's so close that the extra computational cost of considering quantum effects just isn't worth it.

There's a big difference between the way classical physics was "wrong" about mechanics and the way our current scientific knowledge would have to be "wrong" to make it remotely reasonable for the earth to be 10000 years old.

 

Like how you accept that the earth is round because we have pictures of it from space even though the pictures could be fake. You assume they aren't. You take what you have been told by experts as fact and don't question it.

The pictures aren't faked. There is plenty of evidence other than pictures to support the conclusion the earth is, in fact, round (and I mentioned some before).

No, I'm asking what evidence you would need to see to believe that the earth is billions of years old?
 

Something that I can be observable and repeatable using a scientific testing method that isn't in dispute. I've never seen that. As I said, radiocarbon dating and other dating methods are very much in dispute regardless of your insistence otherwise.

I'm curious, do you think Noah's Ark actually happened?

I already answered you. What do YOU think about it?

So you dont think that my arguement of groups of scientists who have an obvious objective in mind will pick and choose pieces of evidence to prove their theories has no merit?

First, I think just about everyone has "an obvious objective" in mind, and it's not remaining true to whatever conclusion the science leads toward. There are a lot of powerful people and groups who influence what is announced as a discovery and what scientific information is presented to the public to establish where a conclusion SUPPOSEDLY came from.

There are MANY things found during scientific research which absolutely cannot be explained using prevailing popular theories on the matter, and yet these are set aside on a regular basis because they don't fit into those prevailing theories. Instead of trying to find new ways to explain what science actually is telling them, the information is abandoned.  If you doubt this is done, you need only consider the funding source for many scientific endeavors and ask yourself what their goals or objectives might be.

An example of this is the idea that humans are now taller and bigger in general than we were in both the recent and remote past. However, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest otherwise. A few of those instances may be less than reputable or an outright hoax, but most are legitimate, and can't simply be explained as a few people being randomly larger than everyone else because there are too many of them. One of the skeletons on that site would have meant the person was over 12 feet tall and supposedly is incredibly old, which means if you believe the dating methods used, at least one person was in fact very large many years ago.

Truly its hard to know what groups of scientists dont have any "marching orders" but to me "young Earth scientists" have a clear and ever-present bias.  Going with that assumption I simply cant take any of their research at face value.

As I said, nearly ALL scientists have "marching orders". Someone pays the bills. Others have influence.

You also have to flip the coin to the other side, to wit: Many "old earth scientists" have a clear and ever-present bias, particularly those who are atheists who may be seeking evidence to support their own religious beliefs (well, lack thereof).

Lastly, when it comes to trivial things I am not going to invest tens if not hundreds of hours pouring over naked data to get a reasonably sound (albeit very amateur) analyses of my very own.  I dont really care how old the Earth is.  So I will listen to the predominant opinion among learned people.

I agree its a rather trivial thing, but it doesn't take anywhere near that long to be able to look at the commonly presented "evidence" and make your own determination regarding its credibility. As for me, I will listen to the "learned people" when they present what I determine is legitimate evidence to back up what they say sufficiently that it is not in reasonable dispute as far as I'm concerned. On the age of the earth, that has yet to happen, so I remain neutral.

Doesnt make me a sheep, it makes me lazy at worst, but more then likely puts me in the dont care enough to investigate further camp.

I don't mind your apathy provided you do not try to argue for one side or the other on the topic in question. When you do that, you admit to arguing out of ignorance, since you are "in the dont care enough to investigate further camp".

You can call them (us) sheeple all you want, but if you are going to do that then every single human is a sheeple.  Because there isnt one single one of us who investigates every single one of their thoughts before coming up with a conclusion or at least an opinion.

I do, and I know plenty of people who do. I never formulate an opinion without obtaining information.  However, I'm not surprised at all by what you say here. The very reason so many people are sheep is because they don't obtain much or any information before jumping to conclusions.

There's a big difference between the way classical physics was "wrong" about mechanics and the way our current scientific knowledge would have to be "wrong" to make it remotely reasonable for the earth to be 10000 years old.

I think many years from now when science is able to tell us much more, the two will be found to be quite similar, but of course you're free to disagree.

WHO GIVES A ****? The earth is as old as my *** hole as far as I care. You ppl seriously need to get a life.

"The pictures aren't faked. There is plenty of evidence other than pictures to support the conclusion the earth is, in fact, round (and I mentioned some before)."

And the radiometric dating isn't wrong. You may not understand it (I don't fully understand it) but just like you don't believe the round earth pictures are faked, I don't believe that all of science would be that off. It's just not rational.

And the radiometric dating isn't wrong.

The difference is while there is no evidence the pictures are faked and other evidence to support the conclusion we draw from the pictures, there is evidence to show radiometric dating could be leading us to incorrect conclusions and likewise no other methods can also lead us to an age for the earth which is not in dispute for good reason, and therefore I remain neutral on the topic.

You may not understand it (I don't fully understand it) but just like you don't believe the round earth pictures are faked, I don't believe that all of science would be that off. It's just not rational.

I understand it well enough to know it isn't a given.

Also, it's not "all of science" - that's what you just don't get. The information is very much in dispute, whether you choose to accept that or not.

It's really not controversial. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support an old earth. There is zero evidence of a young earth.

And it isn't just radiometric dating. Evidence of an old earth exists in every single branch of science. Physics, biology, chemistry, geology, cytogenetics, dendrology, helioseismology, and meteorology. Everything, independently, would have to be wrong for the earth to be 10,000 years old. All scientific disciplines would have to be thrown out the window and we would have to start from scratch because everything we understand about the world would be wrong.

These ages weren't just made up. They were devised from a range of experiments and observations made across multiple disciplines of science such as astronomy, geology, biology, palaeontology, chemistry, geomorphology and physics.

It's really not controversial. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support an old earth. There is zero evidence of a young earth.

You keep repeating this, but no matter how many times you do, it doesn't become any more true. This is THE classic example of how every argument you provide boils down to "because BL says so".

And it isn't just radiometric dating. Evidence of an old earth exists in every single branch of science. Physics, biology, chemistry, geology, cytogenetics, dendrology, helioseismology, and meteorology. Everything, independently, would have to be wrong for the earth to be 10,000 years old.

Funny, you haven't given any examples from those branches of science, probably because you know I could systematically tear them to shreds if I so desired. They all have the same basic fundamental problem, which is relying upon assumptions that lead to potentially incorrect conclusions. I'll just use one random branch of science you mention here and show you how that is the case, so you will know how badly you're screwed in this "argument":

Helioseismic dating relies upon assumptions which are not all that dissimilar from those made in radiocarbon dating, to wit: The amount of helium originally present in the sun must be assumed and cannot possibly be known with certainty,. Indeed, the amount of helium present at any given stage of the sun prior to our own methods of measurement is assumed (never mind that those measurements could also be incorrect).

All scientific disciplines would have to be thrown out the window and we would have to start from scratch because everything we understand about the world would be wrong.

Let's not be too hasty. As we've already seen, science can show us many things that are not in dispute and for obvious reasons. These things do not rely on assumptions but upon things we can observe and measure and demonstrate over and over again.

For example, if we doubt the concept "the earth is round", we can set up a rather simple study on earth the same as Eratosthenes did over 2,000 years ago. This requires a small amount of effort to set up and take measurements and calculate some mathematics, but the point is we can do this now the same as he did thousands of years ago and we can do it over and over with different people doing the same thing and get the same result if it is done properly each time.

Contrast that with your supposed "proof" that the earth is a certain specific age. If we doubt the earth is the age you suggest, can we do the same things and come to a similar conclusion? Not without making the same assumptions to begin with, and those assumptions are where the potential problem exists. If they are wrong or even off by a small amount, your entire calculation is affected and is therefore inaccurate to at least some degree (and perhaps to a great degree).

Honestly, though, that's quite all right. You go on and continue to believe whatever you're told.

There's evidence for an old earth. No one denies this. Is there any evidence of a young earth?

One piece of evidence for an old earth (or, more specifically, an old universe):

The Baptistina asteroid family is a cluster of asteroids with similar orbits. This group was produced by a collision of an asteroid 60 kilometers in diameter with an asteroid 170 kilometers in diameter. Researchers from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the University of Prague have traced the orbits of these asteroids back from their current locations and estimated that the original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago. 2011 data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer has revised the collision date to 80 million years ago.

Another:

Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.

Another:

Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.

Another:

The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects over millions of years old.