Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

etienne_marais said:
Not an implosion resulting in a massively-heated singularity ?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not, there is speculation about that sort of thing, but no concrete evidence that this might be there case. When one starts getting into extremely high-energy and subsequently extremely low-energy states of matter / energy etc, things get very exciting indeed and there is a lot of speculation and hypothesizing, but no concrete evidence. For example, some scientists and philosophers think the universe is cyclical, some think when the universe reaches maximum entropy, something might happen or change which in turn spawns a new universe, etc. There are also a couple of multi-verse theories, but again, this is all hypothetical and speculative. In any case, trillions and trillions of years is very difficult to even fathom, let alone 1000-2000 years.
 
Prawnapple said:
Unfortunately not, there is speculation about that sort of thing, but no concrete evidence that this might be there case. When one starts getting into extremely high-energy and subsequently extremely low-energy states of matter / energy etc, things get very exciting indeed and there is a lot of speculation and hypothesizing, but no concrete evidence. For example, some scientists and philosophers think the universe is cyclical, some think when the universe reaches maximum entropy, something might happen or change which in turn spawns a new universe, etc. There are also a couple of multi-verse theories, but again, this is all hypothetical and speculative. In any case, trillions and trillions of years is very difficult to even fathom, let alone 1000-2000 years.
Click to expand...
Note the non-Science "science" in bold.
 
Prawnapple said:
I don't suppose anything bothers you as a creationist? You can just fill in the blanks with magic?
Click to expand...
Same as evolutionists.

Prawnapple said:
Dark Matter distribution is tied into the evolution of matter and "stuff" in the universe. Just like the 6000 year-old earth, it didn't just suddenly pop into existence. It's been around for billions of years.
Click to expand...
So matter and "stuff" in the universe evolved into matter and "stuff"?
You can just fill in the blanks with magic?
Click to expand...
 
yes, they cover carbon decay too :ROFL: :ROFL:

TIL: New-Age Young Earth Creationists are at around "millions of years" for the age of the earth, but they still refute the billions of years old claim. :laugh:
 
Cray said:
So in your mind Dinosaurs could have walked the earth in the last 6000 years?
Click to expand...
Ponderer said:
Yes - it is possible.
Click to expand...

Ok. So you were just asking in another thread about how it is possible to carbon date over +/- 10000 years. In fact, you were asking to be educated about how that would be possible. And in another post saying dinosaur fossils were only evidence that the animal existed.

So, based on your posts, you either have no frikken clue what you are talking about, or just come to troll.
 
etienne_marais said:
Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia.

W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.

A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.

Full Article
Click to expand...

I actually read the whole article. Rather hilarious (one method said 4 billion years and some other unknown method said 6 billion years).

But then I perused more articles from this creationist site. Came across this comment in one article about dinosaurs.

"Some of these fossil range expansions involve moving evolutionary time boundaries by 100 million years or even more. "

creation.com

Competition between apex predatory dinosaurs pre-Flood? - creation.com

Answering questions on apex predator interactions pre-Flood, including dinosaurs like T. rex and Allosaurus.
creation.com creation.com

This cracked me up with respect to the OP's original intention.
 
Splinter said:
Ok. So you were just asking in another thread about how it is possible to carbon date over +/- 10000 years. In fact, you were asking to be educated about how that would be possible. And in another post saying dinosaur fossils were only evidence that the animal existed.

So, based on your posts, you either have no frikken clue what you are talking about, or just come to troll.
Click to expand...

@Ponderer - where you at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X