RE: How can Christians not admit Christianity is all a pile of garbage when ...?
February 22, 2012 at 3:46 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2012 at 4:07 am by MrSkeptic.)
Radiometric dating is universally accepted amongst the scientific community as perfectly valid data which shows the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has also been used on meteorites and samples bought back from the moon landings, all of which concur with the 'old earth' theory. And I'm not just talking about carbon-14, there are many radioactive elements which can be use to reliably date matter, ALL of which are in agreement with each other (which is more than you can say about your hypocritical story book). How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations, it is dismissed without a thought.
And by the way, it isn't MY theory. It is the accepted theory amongst the scientific community. You state "It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant", I would love to know where you got this information from...one of your creationist web-sites?
And please (for the love of god! - see what I did there :p) explain to me how "The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false" supports your young-earth assertion?? I'm quite amused at that statement alone!
Regarding the Old-Earth theory as a way to prove the theory of evolution which requires the huge time scales, you're just clutching at straws here I'm afraid. Allow me to educate you a little
. For decades after the great Charles Darwin first proposed his magnificent and eloquent theory there was much debate, and one of the biggest objections against his theory was the very long timescales involved which just couldn't be conceived of. At the time it was thought the sun was just a giant sphere of coal (or similar combustible material), slowing burning away, and it was thought only a few tens of thousands of years old so was impossible to allow the time necessary for evolution. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century with the advances made by the likes of Henri Becquerel and Ernest Rutherford in the field of radioactivity that it was discovered the sun wasn't a sphere of coal at all but a huge nuclear reactor! This allowed for a much longer timescale of the suns life which in turn vindicated Darwins theory (in regard to the timescale issue)
I'm doing something I keep telling myself not to, and that is try and reason with a religious fundamentalist. And yes you are a fundamentalist, anyone who actually believes the literal truth of the bible (in particular the old testement) is nothing short of a complete crackpot! Even your church leaders acknowledge a lot of the bible is just creative writing to impart some kind of moral or lesson to be learned!
And by the way, it isn't MY theory. It is the accepted theory amongst the scientific community. You state "It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant", I would love to know where you got this information from...one of your creationist web-sites?
And please (for the love of god! - see what I did there :p) explain to me how "The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false" supports your young-earth assertion?? I'm quite amused at that statement alone!
Regarding the Old-Earth theory as a way to prove the theory of evolution which requires the huge time scales, you're just clutching at straws here I'm afraid. Allow me to educate you a little
. For decades after the great Charles Darwin first proposed his magnificent and eloquent theory there was much debate, and one of the biggest objections against his theory was the very long timescales involved which just couldn't be conceived of. At the time it was thought the sun was just a giant sphere of coal (or similar combustible material), slowing burning away, and it was thought only a few tens of thousands of years old so was impossible to allow the time necessary for evolution. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century with the advances made by the likes of Henri Becquerel and Ernest Rutherford in the field of radioactivity that it was discovered the sun wasn't a sphere of coal at all but a huge nuclear reactor! This allowed for a much longer timescale of the suns life which in turn vindicated Darwins theory (in regard to the timescale issue)I'm doing something I keep telling myself not to, and that is try and reason with a religious fundamentalist. And yes you are a fundamentalist, anyone who actually believes the literal truth of the bible (in particular the old testement) is nothing short of a complete crackpot! Even your church leaders acknowledge a lot of the bible is just creative writing to impart some kind of moral or lesson to be learned!
The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true - Carl Sagan
