Say it's not so!
Then how did your God create everything in 6 days, plus a day of rest? If he is outside of time, and not bound by it...then it suggests that in fact:
A) Our perception of creation is in days, because it is what we can conceive, and everything was probably/probably not created in 6 (+1) days.This implies credibility to other theories.
Thank you, for the first time I can remember, you've conceded a point. Nothing is perfect, but Carbon dating is the best we have available at this time, and that skepticism you show it to things I've provided goes just as well for that as it does for any sort of Biblical artifact. It could be, that those artifacts found that supposably support your claim are older than you (or i) think.
The creation of everything in 6 (+1) days, prove it.You claim it, as such the responsibility of proving the veracity falls on you.
~Alderic
Just checking.
Meh, screw carbon dating. Too many loopholes in it to argue, and why do that when it isn't necessary?
Rubidium-87 to Strontium-87 Radiometric dating involves a half life of 50 BILLION years. The error factor is present, as always, at 30-50 MILLION years. So the worst off it could be is if something is dated in the billions, subtract 50 million - infinitessimal, really. An igneous rock measures at 3 Billion years...ok, so maybe it's really only 2,950,000,000. Big deal. That's still older than 10,000 or whatever half brained number the creationists give for the age of the entire universe. But, I'm sure it's just those diabolical scientists making stuff up again.
LOL
Be Well, ~Alderic
this isn't something new I've said. I've said this many times before Lucas. This has nothing to do with me being right but with me wanting the truth. If I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. I swear around here it's all about trying to be right. Means nothing to me really. I find it interesting when push comes to shove and the experts find anything that can be absolutely verified usually thru historical records it's always younger than 10,000 years. Other than that they'll just put in a guess and it goes alot older than 10,000 years.
follow the money, they'll do it if they need funding. Happens all the time. I'm not making up the news that was reported here. In fact, when I told my son about this article in the London Times he said he's surpirsed that numbers aren't higher. He's finding the science world is quite a rat race.
science is a rat race and the best way to get kicked off it is to fake data. Nobody says that science is perfect or that there are cheats in it but seeing as the vast majority of science is built on other knowedge it is checked. If an article doesn't fit in with the pattern, and later evidence, it is gradually ingored.
Way to ostrich on the Radiometric dating, KFC.
OCK POSTS:
Radiometeric dating uses the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in the radioactive decay chains; in this case, Rubidium-87 to Strontium-87. OCK, while the isotope concentrations or ratios can be measured very accurately, the problem is isotopes are not dates. To derivie ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
1---The starting conditions are known. For example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there.
2---Decay rates have always been constant.
3---Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
Lula,
That's why the error ratio is 30-50 million years. In a measurement where the subject is measured to be 3 billion years old, the worst case scenario is that it's really 2.95 billion years old.
Guess what...you know those stars you see out there? Thousands upon thousands of them are more than 10,000 light years away. The nearest galaxy to the Milky Way is actually inside the Milky way, and it's distance from us is 25,000 light years.
Who is really seeking truth, and who is willfully ignorant?
Well if you've said it, then it must've been in a cryptic way because I've read and this is the first time I've seen you do it. Also, you're attributing the unethical practices of some onto many. That just doesn't work KFC. There are examples out there were things have been verified to be a certain age, but I'm not going to waste my time.
You may want the truth KFC, but the thing is...in your search for truth, you've closed yourself off to truth. You've already made up your mind on what Truth is, to you. You believe that God is the truth. So, in essence, when it comes to things like faith/religion, you're only open to the truth that verifies your truth.
Oi...that made me drive circles in my head.
Actually, Lucas, you said that pretty well.
No one who's entire view of life is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the Earth being 10k years old or less is EVER going to see radiometric dating, or the fact that it takes 25,000 years for an object 25,000 light years away to become visible to us, as any kind of proof that they are wrong. It's really hard to hear when your head is planted in the sand.
Well your head is planted in the sand, Ock
No, your head is, KFC
No your head is, Ock.
No, yours is Lula
Just wanted to get those posts out of the way. Perhaps I should have added some nyaa nyaas to it. Oh well, nobody is perfect.
Hahahahahahahaha.
And that my friends, is the epitome of most of these threads.
Here's some facts for you to ponder of men who have dreamed up theories and call it science.
In 1862, a scientist named thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. 35 years later, he doubled the age to 40 million. 2 years later, a guy named J. Joly said it was 90 million years old. Then, Rayleigh in 1921 said the earth has been here for 1 billion years. 11 years later, W.Hotchkiss moved the figure up to 1.6 billion. A. Holmes in 1947 declared the earth to be 3.35 billion years old. In 1956, he raised it to 4.5 billion.
No matter how you slice and dice it, radiometric dating techniques really don't mean that much. The fact is there is STILL no objective radiological proof that the earth was any of these ages old....certainly not 4.5 billion years old. The new "Age" of the earth is given to fit the most current stellar evolution theory that is in vogue...and alas! taught to unwary school children as "fact". Oh my....I wish it weren't so.
And guess what back? This doesn't prove one iota that the universe is billions of years old.
Yet, there are many powerful lines of evidence in favor of a young earth only a few thousands years old.
Maybe not, but it DOES prove that it's at least 25,000.
Want me to get data on other stars/galaxies that proves it's older, yet? Nope. Eat sand, baby.