Evolution

[Abishalom]

No, I do not know. But I'm not gonna hand it over on a silver platter for you. If you're too lazy to check it out for yourself, then that's your loss, not mine.

Hand what over? I asked a simple question..."what radiometric dating method is used to date the earth?" If you cannot answer the question then why respond in the first place (rhetorical question)?

[Kayenneh]

Hand what over? I asked a simple question..."what radiometric dating method is used to date the earth?" If you cannot answer the question then why respond in the first place (rhetorical question)?

And if you knew the answer, why ask? If you don't why don't you find out yourself?

[popeyespappy]

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Slightly dated paper by a Christian author that explains how we know young Earthers are all fucked up.

[simplexity]

I don't "need" the earth to be 6,000 years old (nor did I ever say that) but you NEED for it to 4.5 billion years sold to fit your "slow processes over long periods of time" fantasy.

It's not a fantasy you fucking moron. If you had even bothered to look anything up for yourself you would find find out immediately but obviously you don't want to know the truth. You ask three times what dating method was used to date the earth and because no-one gives you an answer on THIS thread you assume it must not be possible. You won't look it up yourself since you will only look up information which agrees with your own preconceived stupidity. This thread should be locked.

[Jackalope]

No, I do not know. But I'm not gonna hand it over on a silver platter for you. If you're too lazy to check it out for yourself, then that's your loss, not mine.

Hand what over? I asked a simple question..."what radiometric dating method is used to date the earth?" If you cannot answer the question then why respond in the first place (rhetorical question)?

There are multiple lines of evidence, including radiometric dating, to support an ancient earth. Before you ask again "which radiometric method", the answer is "several", and they are in agreement - and there are other non-radiometric methods which are also in agreement with the figures obtained from radiometric methods.

There is no real controversy here, except amongst young-earthers who appear to prefer cognitive bias and clinging to ancient fables to fact.

Here's a thread I posted several months ago on the subject (with references).

[FallentoReason]

I don't "need" the earth to be 6,000 years old (nor did I ever say that) but you NEED for it to 4.5 billion years sold to fit your "slow processes over long periods of time" fantasy.

The number 4.5 billion comes from geology i.e. the oldest terrestrial samples we have to date.

What method did they use?

As others have mentioned, they use radiometric dating. What they do is they measure how many radioactive isotopes there are left and because they know the decay rate of that isotope they know how old the rock has to be for there to be that many radioactive isotopes left.

I'm not sure what discipline you have followed in your life so maybe you're not as heavily trained in physics. Because I study engineering at university I had to do all the physics and maths subjects in high school. This radioactive decay stuff gets taught in grade 11 so it's basic stuff and a well known theory.

[Jackalope]

Yeah, but it's "just a theory", right? LOL

While it's true that the 4.54 by age of the earth is determined by (several independent methods of) radiometric dating, it's also important to understand that it isn't the only method used.

* Solar seismology dates the sun to 4.6 by. While this doesn't directly date the earth, it does place a maximum limit on it's age, and given what we know about formation of planetary systems, the data agrees with the radiometric findings.

* Loess deposits date the earth to no less than a few million years and place no limit on the maxim age.

* The above is also true of varves.

* There is dendrological (tree ring) history going back uninterrupted for 10 ky, establishing another lower limit in the earth's age.

These are only the lines of evidence I can think off off the top of my head, and there are others. None of the evidence supports a young earth hypothesis.

While old earth critics may have bullshit criticisms of radiometric methods, in the case of dendrochronology, varves, and Loess deposits, scientists employ a sophisticated technique known as "counting", which as any kindergarten student can tell you, is pretty fucking accurate.

Therefore, I can only conclude that someone claiming the earth to be less than millions of years old is woefully ignorant.

[jess_essential]

Sagan was amazing. And people across time have created more chaos over religion than anything else. I wish I could use the excuse that god told me to do it every time I fucked up, sighh.

[downbeatplumb]

Hi I was wondering if athiests believe in evolution. And Earth is a fairly new world cosmically speaking could it be possible that God/s evolved before Earth? Let me simplify, a god is a being with the power of creation, a master of maipulation of energy and matter. Could it be possible that in the eons of the Chaos the Gods evolved?

This does not sound like a god but a like q from star trek.
A powerful alien would be more plausible than the magic man possited by theists, but would not be a god.
Gods work by definition in the supernatural, if you reduced this to natural processes you make it no longer divine, just a powerful alien.

[Abishalom]

I don't "need" the earth to be 6,000 years old (nor did I ever say that) but you NEED for it to 4.5 billion years sold to fit your "slow processes over long periods of time" fantasy.

It's not a fantasy you fucking moron. If you had even bothered to look anything up for yourself you would find find out immediately but obviously you don't want to know the truth. You ask three times what dating method was used to date the earth and because no-one gives you an answer on THIS thread you assume it must not be possible. You won't look it up yourself since you will only look up information which agrees with your own preconceived stupidity. This thread should be locked.

I'm sure that's exactly what I was thinking. You really need to stop making ASSumptions...