4.5-20 billion years old?

encomiast

boosted kraut
Mar 31, 2005
192
0
0
germany
D34DC311 said:
If gods not real then well they really will feel like crap when they find out the truth.
The point is that you can't prove God is real, just like you can't prove he's not real. BTW which "god" are we talking about here? ;)
The Christian God, Allah, Shiva, Ra, Krishna, Zeus, Chalchihiutlicue, ...? If at least all the believers on this planet could agree on one concept of "god", but this is of course impossible... instead many of them even fight against or try to "proselytize" each other.

Don't get me wrong, my best friend and his family are Mennonites, great guys. To each their own.

BTW I'm wondering what Nick would believe in if he had been born and raised in say an Islamic environment. He'd probably be defending the Koran just as much as he is defending the Bible right now (I hope he doesn't feel offended by me saying this).
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
^^ That is a good website. I like their FAQ page best... --->FAQWTF!!

Also, these two links are from the list of "Creationist Lies" (Sorry people, I did not name it) page and talks directly about lava dating and this subject. Click the links to get the full story. Lie #23, Lie #24. We have already covered #7, #8 and #9 in the "Did you evolve?" thread. ;)
Lie #23 said:
The so-called “excess argon” problem which the creationist like to crow about, which is responsible for most of the incorrect results of recent flows using the older K-Ar dating method. Before argon-argon dating became common this was a big problem for dating extremely young rocks via potassium-argon. Dalrymple2 did one of the early studies on the application of potassium-argon to historic lava flows before argon-argon method largely solved the problem. He looked at 26 historic lava flows. One-third had excess argon, but the excess argon error in all but one was so small that the error caused would be utterly insignificant in a rock older than a few million years. (And some of the excess argon errors made the rocks too young.) The one lava flow which they found a large amount of excess argon that would still be significant in an older rock was samples from the 1800-1801 lava flow from Hawaii that dated 1.19 and 1.05 million years. Dalrymple pointed out that this was not unexpected, citing Funkhouser and Naughton’s work showing the xenoliths have excess argon. (The samples included the xenoliths as well as matrix. One advance since that study is the ability test far smaller samples, often single crystals that can solve many problems like this one.) I will point out while 1.19 million years is significant to a professional geologist, even it is not that much in the grand order of things. If it turns out that the dinosaurs died out 1.19 million years earlier than the approximately 65 million years currently believed, I will not loose any sleep. The lava flow with the second greatest error at 0.22 million years would be utterly trivial for rocks as old as the dinosaurs. And as mentioned before the argon-argon technique largely solves the excess argon problem anyway: it can detect the problem and sometimes still give a good date in spite of the problem.
Lie #24 said:
Thus if the young-earth creationists, like Snelling, are trying to use the problem of excess argon to show that radiometric dating is wrong, they have failed miserably. They need to show that K-Ar consistently, not sometimes, gives bad dates. They need to show that K-Ar’ bad dates make the rocks look too old and not sometimes too young. And they need to show that the quantity of the errors is often several thousand times greater than the errors shown here. And then they would have to show the same for all the other many other forms of dating.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
Sep 9, 2005
8,897
40
48
U.S.
www.ebay.com
Notice how the left changes their position on where they are coming from? Sort of like the soft tissue sample found in the T-Rex bone. Just thought I would throw that out there for you.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
Who is changing positions? Sometimes with new discoveries there are advances made and the science evolves. That is the beauty of science. It is not written in stone and it should be questioned at every step of the way. No problems here with that at all.

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years. (Carbon dating is good for rocks under 70k years only)
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. (Argon dating is good for rocks older than 100k years only.)

As for the Hawaii lava flow age, The creationist have lied about, or did not understand the contents of this paper. The two-hundred year old lava was not what scientists were trying to date. What was being studied were xenoliths (also called inclusions). What these are, are bits of rock that are embedded within the lava flow. These rocks are older than the lava flow. They were carried up by the magma, but the magma was not hot enough to melt them. Thus one should not be surprised that these bits of rock date older than two centuries old since they are well over two centuries old. Furthermore the study was trying to see in this dating technique is appropriate for xenoliths. They found that it was not.

As for the T-rex, Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens.

Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs' original molecular material may still be present.

"We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think," says Schweitzer. "Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place."

T-rex story

Edit: I have a lot of respect for you Nick and I am not trying to pick on you or your beliefs at all. I am just pointing out some other options/explanations/possibilities. ;)
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
39
The Farm
encomiast said:
The point is that you can't prove God is real, just like you can't prove he's not real. BTW which "god" are we talking about here? ;)
The Christian God, Allah, Shiva, Ra, Krishna, Zeus, Chalchihiutlicue, ...? If at least all the believers on this planet could agree on one concept of "god", but this is of course impossible... instead many of them even fight against or try to "proselytize" each other.

Don't get me wrong, my best friend and his family are Mennonites, great guys. To each their own.

BTW I'm wondering what Nick would believe in if he had been born and raised in say an Islamic environment. He'd probably be defending the Koran just as much as he is defending the Bible right now (I hope he doesn't feel offended by me saying this).

Notice how I used a Lower case g and not cap it.
Christian god = God
Talking about everyones god = god.