For the record, radiocarbon dating (which uses the decay of C14 into N14) is only useful for dating artifacts up to a few tens of thousands of years old.
For “age-of-the-earth” type measurements, we use the U238:Pb206 ratio (we assume the rock started off with no lead, and the uranium decays into lead). The half-life of U238 is around 4.5E9 years. Therefore, if we find a rock that has a 1:1 ratio, then it is around 4 billion years old. And lo and behold, we have found lots of rocks with 1:1 ratios.
The funny thing is, even without dating of the Earth through terrestrial means, we know from looking at the universe that it is billions of years old. The cosmic microwave background results have pinned down the age of the universe to about 13 billion years, and the science is VERY good. If anyone wants to come up with an explanation for how the universe can have a homeogeneous (to one part in 10^5) blackbody spectrum corresponding to 2.7 Kelvin, and still be 6000 years old, then good luck!
Anyhow, even if we ignore that, we know that stars take tens of millions of years to go from clumps of gas to hydrogen-burning furnaces. And, we see stars in all stages of evolution, which means either all of our physics is wrong, or the universe is old enough to have accomodated all of the stars to be created and evolve into their present states.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
For the record, radiocarbon dating (which uses the decay of C14 into N14) is only useful for dating artifacts up to a few tens of thousands of years old.
For “age-of-the-earth” type measurements, we use the U238:Pb206 ratio (we assume the rock started off with no lead, and the uranium decays into lead). The half-life of U238 is around 4.5E9 years. Therefore, if we find a rock that has a 1:1 ratio, then it is around 4 billion years old. And lo and behold, we have found lots of rocks with 1:1 ratios.
The funny thing is, even without dating of the Earth through terrestrial means, we know from looking at the universe that it is billions of years old. The cosmic microwave background results have pinned down the age of the universe to about 13 billion years, and the science is VERY good. If anyone wants to come up with an explanation for how the universe can have a homeogeneous (to one part in 10^5) blackbody spectrum corresponding to 2.7 Kelvin, and still be 6000 years old, then good luck!
Anyhow, even if we ignore that, we know that stars take tens of millions of years to go from clumps of gas to hydrogen-burning furnaces. And, we see stars in all stages of evolution, which means either all of our physics is wrong, or the universe is old enough to have accomodated all of the stars to be created and evolve into their present states.[/quote]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No. Science is not a leap of faith. It is, in fact the OPPOSITE of a leap of faith. Fossils, carbon dating, etc. These are not articles of faith. They are things that can be proven or disproven.
I thought that I heard carbon dating wasn’t a rock solid dating method?
[/quote]
It must be that all of the methods are so wildly out, that they all miss the fact that the world is 6000 or so years old.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
So anyone who believes that Dinosaurs and man coexisted are complete idiots? How can these morons take the Bible so literaly?
How can the otherside trust and have so much faith in dating methods that have proven to be flawed? You can’t take it LITERALY, can you? Without this enormous time frame that all your stories were supposed to have happened, you have absolutely nothing to go off of.
Man is arrogant and ignorant to think that he can pick a part such a huge time frame of millions and billions of years. [/quote]
And man is so stupid and dumb as to place trust in a 1500 year old tome that is written after the fact. if you mean arrogant and ignorant = inquisitive and experiential, then maybe you are right.
[quote]FlyingMumuOfDumb wrote:
So anyone who believes that Dinosaurs and man coexisted are complete idiots? How can these morons take the Bible so literaly?[/quote]
A1) Yes. A2) Because they are morons.
The science behind the various dating methods is quite solid and has been tested repeatedly. You’d know that if you bothered reading and educating yourself about it.
On the other hand, you can keep getting your “education” from creationist websites and remain a retard.
Your choice.
How dare man use his brain to understand the world! How dare those scientist to come up with MULTIPLE methods who all agree with EACH OTHER! How dare they question the wisdom of primitive Hebrew tribes who pulled random facts from their asses while sitting around a campfire!
HERESY! Verily I say unto thee, thy LORD commands thee to BURN those HERETICS at the STAKE! JEEBUS your LORD and SAVIOR who is naught but PURE LOVE and FORGIVENESS commands THEE to KILL those HEATHENS who dare THINK for THEMSELVES!! AMEN!! AMEN!! Praise be to GOD (last name DAMMIT) and JEEBUS and His HOLY SPRITE!!
This is a bodybuilding website that reveres science… the science of nutrition, science of training, pharmacology. It blows my mind that there are guys here who dismiss science. I don’t see how anyone can dispute that carbon dating works.
“I have family that recently moved to OK. They went to one of those huge Baptist Churches just to check it out.
For some reason they serve popcorn in church and spend 50% of the time insulting the papists (Catholics). Very strange.”
I remember the “God squad” in high school. They were Southern Baptist-type fundies. Bunch of friggin’ loonies. Then at college I made Catholic friends and they restored my faith in God. Catholics seem a lot more genuine and seem to embody the true spirit of God and Jesus than the Southern Baptist fundies, no contest at all.
There is a deep underlying hatred/dislike of Catholics in the south. It is indeed very strange.
No. Science is not a leap of faith. It is, in fact the OPPOSITE of a leap of faith. Fossils, carbon dating, etc. These are not articles of faith. They are things that can be proven or disproven.
To further show you to be an incredibly thick moron, were you around 200 and something years ago? No. Then how do you know that the American Revolution took place? Do you believe in it based on faith?
Jackass.
[/quote]
Bones left in the ground can fossilize rather quickly.
Carbon dating is a myth.
On faith, I believe our history books since I was not around 200 years ago for the American revolution.
Boy harry, you are quite dumb to believe everything people tell you. Do your homework…you might actually learn something.
Was the Grand Canyon carved in 6,000 years or did God make it pre-formed to test the doubters?[/quote]
Why don’t you tell us what the earth was like when it was first formed because you seem to know the answer. Was everything just flat without any canyons? Were there many mountains? What was it like?
[quote]Yet, everyone seems to know exactly what happened over the period of billions of years?
What the fuck?
[/quote]
Some processes are a lot easier to understand than others. In particular, those studies involving humans are very limited… in that you have to be careful not to kill the people you are trying to study.
