How old is the Earth?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Well actually that was not the only case, it's observed quite often. He did not refute that claim either because the article he cited pre-dated the research I cited. Kind of hard to refute research that has happened yet.

Uh... no.
This can't happen 'quite often.' This can't happen "sometimes" or "maybe" or "there are cases of"
- You're missing the point -

For this crackpot theory to be valid, it would have to be off, by a factor of hundreds of millions, for every sample ever collected both on and off the earth by exactly the same degree.
As you should be keenly aware, nothing in nature is capable of that kind of outright deception. Nevermind the fact that radiometric dating can't be falsified by current dating methods for all the reasons you have yet to actually refute.
None of your so-called 'evidence' has any possibility of this happening.

Well I said "up to" a magnitude of 8, so your 45 year thing doesn't mean much.

That's nice.

You still haven't addressed the issue that if all these rates are constant then how come the same sample gives different ages when different radiometric dating methods are used on it?

Because dating methods go by the kind of sample - there is a method for uranium dating, one for carbon-14, and one for all the other kinds of radioactive isotopes that can be found naturally.
It's the same kind of thing as to how you're not going to ace a science class by submitting the answers for your theology class and scientists are keenly aware of this sort of thing.

I would expect them all to be the same if the rates have been constant. So do you believe all natural rates have been constant?

Yes.

Are you a true uniformitarian? I can guarantee you are going to start using the same arguments as I do when I show that using a lot of other rates we can extrapolate young ages for the Earth. "Oh those rates have changed but my rates have not". What happens when Carbon 14 dates and radiometric dates conflict? Which one do you choose then?

You do know that dating carbon 14 is radiometric dating, right?
Well, at least one of the radioactive isotopic elements used for that purpose.

Actually the Bible never says the Earth is flat, that's often claimed by people who don't know how to conduct proper exegesis.

Indeed, I must have forgotten where the spherical earth ends or how many corners a spherical earth has.

---

Wow you dodged a lot there. You never answered, what happens when two things are supposedly the same age, but when you date the organic matter with radio-carbon dating it comes out to a vastly different age than the non-organic matter that is dated with radio-metric dating? We see this a lot with fossils that still have some organic matter left. Which date do you accept then?

It would not have to change the rates off the Earth for radiometric decay, only on the Earth. Go back and see the work by Dr. Newton. Using calcuated time definition the matter from off the Earth would date to be old. I know you don't get the whole time defintion thing, but give a look.

You never gave us the specific passage that supposedly says the Earth is flat, so I guess I will just assume it does not exist.

---

---

You just tried to make an absolute statement that there is not such thing as absolutes. I love it when you guys use self-refuting logic.

I made no such omission. Do I have to tell you a third time?

I told you before what my "assumptions" on regarding the Earth as several billion years old are and obviously you weren't listening, so allow me to expand. I never made this claim; I simply accepted the findings of what real scientists unveiled. Neither they nor I state this in the context of absolute certainty. I don't know for sure the age of the Earth. Science also does not claim to know the exact age of the planet as the dating technology and calculations continue to advance in their accuracy, it doesn't take much to appreciate the hard work that's gone into developing these techniques to give us more reliable, more precise data. The tests conducted satisfied my standards of evidence since they presented only logic and observations by studying the Earth, which is acceptable to me and I feel justified until someone with a better explanation comes along. I'll say it again my position on this, and never can be, concrete. Some naysayer may call out the findings but guess what? They offer nothing in its place but dogmatic nonsensical drivel from a bunch of goat herders, they don't conduct intensive study or research, they're simply skeptical of skepticism. Science is not as counterproductive as this.

It's the philosophers who waste their time with concepts such as absolute knowledge. It's an ogre of wasted effort. Neither you nor I can know anything for sure - this is OLD news. This whole reality as we perceive it may be a lie or delusion for all we know, but to the best of our knowledge it's demonstrably real, its manifests itself, we are physical. To the best of our knowledge and understanding it's a reality where one can catalogue our observations of natural phenomena and derive logically sound conclusions that have explanatory power and meaning from them. While we can never know anything "for certain" we may continue to investigate, obtain theories and make predictions by simply using the evidence at hand.

I have not presented any evidence becaause this thread is designed to get at the heart of Old-Earth assumptions. Once we can all be intellecutally honest about the assumptions and the faith that goes itno the Old-Eearth position then we can finally begin to dance.

Well at least you're being honest with me in that you've no evidence, but hardly respectful. I ask for clarity and you present nothing. I've taken the time to answer your questions in this debate now you have the decency to respond to mine.

I know what I am doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8u7px_GzWQ

---

You did not understand what I was talking about. I was talking about your absolute claim that there is no such thing as absolutes. It's like a man saying, "I can only tell lies"- that is a self-refuting claim for obvious reasons.

Which questions would you like answered?

---

If you could please point out where my understanding of Science is off, that would be great. Please give a source too, so I can see who you listen to when defining science. Though I did notice that you made a slight appeal to consensus in your post. This may show a little bit of your lack of scientific knowledge, or maybe you just didn't mean to do it. The majority of scientists not only could be wrong, but are often wrong- just look at the history of science. So to jump on me for believing this is the case today is an error I believe. Thanks for the avatar compliment though!

This was my point. While many scientists can be wrong... You seem to think you've single-handedly come to a conclusion, where peer-reviewed, repeatable testing is wrong.

Have you down your own research into what you're claiming, or are you currently an armchair scientist at the moment?

Well the work I do now doesn't involve the age of the Earth. However, I do follow the peer-reviewed work on boht sides of the issue and I feel the peer-reviewed work on the creation side of it is superior in methodology and interpretation. There is good and bad work on both sides though, I am sure you agree. Like I believe (as do several creation groups but not all of them) that this current work with Noah's Ark done by the Chinese is a Hoax. I think it's important that both sides are honest when they are wrong.

---

Hey,

I am moving over to "The Statler Waldorf Balcony", don't want to clutter up your guys' board too much so I am condensing all my activity to one thread. See you guys there if you want to keep talking.

SW