How old is the Earth?

[Shell B]

Statler, could you please create an introduction thread here http://atheistforums.org/forum-11.html so we can get to know you a little better? This is sort of a loaded topic, I believe. It might be easier if you introduce yourself and we get an idea of where you stand. Thanks.

[Zen Badger]

A trolling we will go.

A trolling we will go, hi ho the merry-o,

a trolling we will go.......

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

No one knows, I dont really care anyway.
Radio decay is not constant see here:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-4597.html

Of course, that would not 'prove' YEC at all.

Of course it doesn't. It also doesn't prove that radiometric dating is unreliable or inconsistent in any manner that would make the technique less reliable than we thought it was. The idea was already even addressed by myself and others in that thread.

[Statler Waldorf]

In the 21st century an adult presumably having access to a real education could not get much more yokelish than believing the earth the earth to be less 12,000 years old, unless he was to also believe a ship once preserved all the animals liable to drown in a world wide flood, or that world was made by a bronze age beduin sky god in 7 of some sort of days. There is nothing ad hominem about calling such a yokel a yokel, nor calling him a troll when he trolls.

Present your presuppositions and conclusions about the age of the earth first to suggest your good "faith", or shut up.
.

More assertions. You didn't identify your assumptions and presuppositions- you just tried to backup (poorly I might add) your ad hominem ways. You fail lol.

P.S. God created in 6 days, not 7. Education matters.

---

I don't think you got all of your assumptions down. If you ascribe to Radiometric dating you must first assume that the radiometric decay has been constant. You must then also assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth correct?

What other assumptions are you looking for me to provide?
I do assume radiometric dating is relatively constant.
I do assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth.

Ok great! Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for answering the question. So do you also assume that all natural rates of decay have been constant?

[Minimalist]

God created in 6 days, not 7.

Well that answers my question. Just one more fundie shithead.

[LastPoet]

I wonder how long this one will last

[Ace Otana]

God created in 6 days, not 7.

Well that answers my question. Just one more fundie shithead.

Don't tell me he's a creationist.

Well that does explain a few things.

I wonder how long this one will last

Not very long I think.

To think, 5 years ago I didn't think it was possible that people can be this....uneducated.

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't think you got all of your assumptions down. If you ascribe to Radiometric dating you must first assume that the radiometric decay has been constant. You must then also assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth correct?

How big do you want his post to be?

If you want to discuss radiometric dating in detail then there can be a separate thread created for it same goes for anything else you want to discuss in detail. In this thread you asked for the reasons. Otherwise this could end up a very long and messy thread if you want to start digging into everything.

Things like radiometric dating have been discussed many times before so if this is a sticking point for you then perhaps you can start with some research.

Talk origins has a lot of information which debunks a lot of the YEC bullshit. Of course you are free to evaluate the information provided and choose to reject or accept it, but I suggest you read it first before discussing.

Anyway, you can find the site here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ and the specific stuff about creationists and radiometric dating here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrympl...ng.html#h8

There are more pages going into it as well.

When done, why not start a separate thread for this topic?

EDIT:

Forgot to give my answer.

1) Believe around 4.5 billion years (i think you will find this rough figure a pretty common answer here because its the scientifically agreed one... at least for the moment).

2) Scientific evidence coming from many many different disciplines. However, i love to talk about Dinosaurs with YECs because that always makes me smile when they start talking about dinosaurs living around the time of the supposed flood. Also how ancient civilizations would actually have already existed when God was supposed to have created the universe wonderfully parodied by The Onion here: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sumeria...worl,2879/

3) Well, i guessed it was older than my Grandparents who were the oldest people i knew, and they talked about their parents etc. Then i started to learn about things like history, and got interested in Dinosaurs and Space at a young age (what young boy isn't interested in these things?) then became quite interested in lots of scientific subjects. Slowly over time the picture filled out.... i think they call it education. ;-)

Well I am quite familiar and educated in the radiometric dating method, so I didn't really start this thread to learn about the actual method. I am trying to get at the assumptions that go into these methods. You even brought up Dinosaurs and Ancient Civilizations- but I am sure you are aware that the only reason people think these pre-date 6000 years is becuse of the dating methods used to date them right? So if I can ponit out the problems with these methods or the assumptions that go into them, the rest will all fall into place.

---

I don't think you got all of your assumptions down. If you ascribe to Radiometric dating you must first assume that the radiometricsumption decay has been constant. You must then also assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth correct?

What other assumptions are you looking for me to provide?
I do assume radiometric dating is relatively constant.
I do assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth.

Both of these assumptions are sound.

1. Radioactive decay is fundamentally governed by the strong nuclear force, which also govern nuclear fusion. If there is difference in radioactive decay rate over time, that would reflect a change In strong nuclear interaction over time. This would be also reflected in the behavior of nuclear fusion in stars over time. We can directly observe that behavior of nuclear fusion in stars over time by observing stars and galaxies at different number of light years from earth, thus viewing them directly at different points in the past. We can see nuclear fusion has not changed over time, so neither has the behavior of strong nuclear interaction, and neither has radioactive decay.

2. The presence of daughter elements at the beginning is impossible because the mineral useful for such dating mostly can be demonstrated to have been melted in the past. The daughter elements of reactions most useful to radiometric dating are those which would have floated to the top, sunk to the bottom, or bubbled out of the melt, thus the melting process would have purged the material of any primordial inventory of daughter element. So the radiometric dating accurately measures how long it has been since the material last melted.

Ehh the second assumption is not nearly as sound as you make it out to be. There is lots of research that suggests one of these two assumptions is not valid. I lean towards the second one not being valid.

[Shell B]

Statler, again, please produce an introduction thread.

Everyone else, easy does it, alright?

[Statler Waldorf]

Statler, again, please produce an introduction thread.

Everyone else, easy does it, alright?

Yup, I am working on it.