The age of the earth-what does science say?

radiometric dating is a tried and proven method, it has shown the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.yoshi-lnex

You know, you should stop just listening to your peers and actually investigate these things for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth-Karayan-

For your information I dont listen to my peers this is my OWN research ok. So please dont make assumptions. 

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]radiometric dating is a tried and proven method, it has shown the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.CrimzonTide

please radiometric dating is unbelivevably fallible !! now you are the one that should do some research!.

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"]You know, you should stop just listening to your peers and actually investigate these things for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_eartholle90

For your information I dont listen to my peers this is my OWN research ok. So please dont make assumptions. 

So the extent of your research is finding out humans were not around at the begining of time?

[QUOTE="CrimzonTide"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]radiometric dating is a tried and proven method, it has shown the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.olle90

please radiometric dating is unbelivevably fallible !! now you are the one that should do some research!.

[QUOTE="CrimzonTide"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]radiometric dating is a tried and proven method, it has shown the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.olle90

please radiometric dating is unbelivevably fallible !! now you are the one that should do some research!.

[QUOTE="olle90"]

[QUOTE="CrimzonTide"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]radiometric dating is a tried and proven method, it has shown the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.Dasc00

please radiometric dating is unbelivevably fallible !! now you are the one that should do some research!.

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

olle90

EDIT: Also, DNA 

[QUOTE="olle90"]

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

Dasc00

EDIT: Also, DNA 

Ever heard of your theories fails? Becuse that what it does.  So Í would suggest to you to repent before its to late :)

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

olle90

Ever heard of your theories fails? Becuse that what it does.  So Í would suggest to you to repent before its to late :)

Doesn't hell not exist right now, so what exactly happens if we refuse to repent?

[QUOTE="Dasc00"][QUOTE="olle90"]

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

olle90

EDIT: Also, DNA

Ever heard of your theories fails? Becuse that what it does. So Í would suggest to you to repent before its to late :)

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

olle90

According the the worlds three major religious texts..The world is what...6000 years old?rappid_rabbit

[QUOTE="rappid_rabbit"]According the the worlds three major religious texts..The world is what...6000 years old?yoshi-lnex

There are mountain ranges that dissappeared and now there is another mountain range in the same spot. That is old and can be proven by geology.Varese_basic

[QUOTE="Dasc00"][QUOTE="olle90"]

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

olle90

EDIT: Also, DNA 

Ever heard of your theories fails? Becuse that what it does.  So Í would suggest to you to repent before its to late :)

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"]You know, you should stop just listening to your peers and actually investigate these things for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_eartholle90

For your information I dont listen to my peers this is my OWN research ok. So please dont make assumptions.

Wow.  So you and you alone, out of 6 BILLION people on this planet, hold the secret to the age of the Earth.

Listening to their peers is exactly what scientists do, because it helps them better understand and debate the facts and possibilities.  NOT listening is hardly indicative of good learning practices.

Nicely done on your "One Man Stand".  Keep up the good work.

Well first of all we need to understand that scientists can not prove that the earth is old or young.
You see all the dating methods used by scientists are based on some BIG assumptions, and the only way
scientists can prove the earths age is if they knew someone who was there at the beginning to record the facts.
But scientists of course dont have any such human eye witnesses they can only make assumptions based on what we see today.
You know God must have looked down on such human efforts as people tried to understand
things without seeking him for truth and thats why God asked Job where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
in other words he asked where you there? you know while no humans were there God was !
and nothing from science can contradict this.olle90

[QUOTE="CrimzonTide"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]radiometric dating is a tried and proven method, it has shown the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.olle90

please radiometric dating is unbelivevably fallible !! now you are the one that should do some research!.

 

Ever heard of your theories fails? Becuse that what it does. So Í would suggest to you to repent before its to late :)

olle90

As Einstein would say, "time is relative"