Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

wright



    Posts: 1734
  • Darwins +72/-1

This is in response to johnnyb1871's post on this thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25228.new.html#new


I have noticed that since I was a child that each year they say planet is much older than the thought it went from millions of years to 500 million years old.

Please provide sources (besides creationist websites) that show that the age of the Earth has been revised "each year". Or just admit you're making that up. The approximate age of our planet (around 4.5 billion years; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth) has been established for decades.

Quote
I read a story a few months ago I woud like to share with a of you
a man bought some dinosaur bones and sent it to Arizona State University to be carbon dated.
He never told them what kind of bones he had sent them.
when he got the results back they were only 7000 years old.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

ParkingPlaces tore that creationist lie to pieces quite easily in the other thread.

Quote
I think man is trig to outsmart itself we all have our opinions and each of us is entitled to have one,but I have learned don't trust what scientist say 99% of the time they are wrong.
Don't buy into the first thing you hear for fools will follow other fools.

It's too bad you don't trust what scientists say, and by extension the scientific method, because modern society is utterly dependent on the unceasing work of scientists, engineers, technicians and other specialists. Specialists who use the refined reasoning we call the scientific method to maintain and improve everything from power grids to fertilizers to vaccines to light-emitting diodes to toilet bowl cleaners. That "99% of the time they are wrong" is, frankly, bullshit.

Creationists attempting to refute fossils and dating methods goes back to before Darwin's time. Accurate dating of fossils is pretty well established at this point, though methods of course continue to improve.

Here are the basics as I understand them. A fossil can be first dated by its location in the geological column, or biostratigraphy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy). There are widely separated locations worldwide that have the same fossils at the same location in the same strata. Even before the discovery of radioactive decay this provided accurate indications of the relative age of various geological layers, and is still useful today.

Radiometric dating(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) is more recent, but at least as well supported. There are several methods, each of which have different advantages and disadvantages in their application. These include:
  • uranium-lead; particularly useful in that a given sample provides two "clocks" (uranium 235 and 238 to their respective forms of lead) for cross-checking.
  • rubidium-strontium; with a half-life of 50 billion years, this is used on the oldest terrestrial metamorphic rocks, as well as lunar samples.
  • uranium-thorium; particularly useful for dating ocean-floor sediments.
  • carbon-14; used for relatively recent specimens (about 50-60 thousand years old).

All these depend on the consistency of radioactive decay in the specific isotope being measured and minimizing potential contamination of the specimen. The first is well-established; nuclear decay is an inherent property of matter and unaffected by external factors. The second is often a possibility, so care must be taken to avoid contamination and identify it when a particular method gives an inconsistent result.

Here's a good reference for refuting creationist claims against proven dating methods:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit

Really, to be a creationist (particularly a young-Earth creationist) in the modern era requires great dedication to maintaining a high level of ignorance. That and outright lies are the only way to perpetuate that worldview. The facts certainly aren't friendly to it.
Changed Change Reason Date