40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[xotoxi]

In order to know how old something is you need to have a known sample to make a comparison. Every dating system has it's flaws, therefore cannot be considered accurate.


When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[1] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[2] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[3] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[4] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.


1.G. WoldeGabriel et al., “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature, 1994, 371:330-333.

2.M. Lubenow, “The Pigs Took It All,” Creation, 1995, 17(3):36-38.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 247-266.

3.A.R. Williams, “Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility,” CEN Technical Journal, 1992, 6(1):2-5.

4.Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.

So would your answer to the questions that you raised regarding scientific dating is "God created everything 10,000 years ago"?

Where is your proof in that? And don't cite the Bible...because that was written by men.

No, my answer is, I don't know and neither do you or anyone else.

BTW the Bible was written by men inspired by God. I come to that conclusion by knowing the Bible contains 66 books written over a vast amount of time on three continents in three different languages with authors from every station in life.

And do you think that the age of the world as determined by scientific dating was based on one sample of bone or rock in one location by one person?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the man in the sky or someone claiming to have talked to the man in the sky says the earth is only 10K years old then it must be true.

right?

 

[xotoxi]

BTW the Bible was written by men inspired by God.

You mean that it was written by men inspired by the theory and hope that there was a God as they could not otherwise explain their surroundings and they were fearful of concept that the entire world and their existance had been created by chance.

Plus, they realized that this was a perfect opportunity to put in writing how the masses should act and that there would be terrible unimaginable consequences if they should violate the rules.

 

[Vanquish]

You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Only an idiot would think that you could get blood out of a turnip.

Lawl. that made me chuckle.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So would your answer to the questions that you raised regarding scientific dating is "God created everything 10,000 years ago"?

Where is your proof in that? And don't cite the Bible...because that was written by men.

No, my answer is, I don't know and neither do you or anyone else.

BTW the Bible was written by men inspired by God. I come to that conclusion by knowing the Bible contains 66 books written over a vast amount of time on three continents in three different languages with authors from every station in life.

And do you think that the age of the world as determined by scientific dating was based on one sample of bone or rock in one location by one person?

No I think a bunch of idiots are trying to determine the undeterminable and they make assumptions based on preconcieved notions thus dictating their conclusions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

BTW the Bible was written by men inspired by God.

You mean that it was written by men inspired by the theory and hope that there was a God as they could not otherwise explain their surroundings and they were fearful of concept that the entire world and their existance had been created by chance.

Plus, they realized that this was a perfect opportunity to put in writing how the masses should act and that there would be terrible unimaginable consequences if they should violate the rules.

No I stated what I meant. I'm sorry you're not bright enough to comprehend it.

 

[xotoxi]

No, my answer is, I don't know and neither do you or anyone else.

BTW the Bible was written by men inspired by God. I come to that conclusion by knowing the Bible contains 66 books written over a vast amount of time on three continents in three different languages with authors from every station in life.

And do you think that the age of the world as determined by scientific dating was based on one sample of bone or rock in one location by one person?

No I think a bunch of idiots are trying to determine the undeterminable and they make assumptions based on preconcieved notions thus dictating their conclusions.

One could say the exact same thing to explain your side of the argument.

 

[xotoxi]

I'm sorry you're not bright enough to comprehend it.

Why with the ad hominems?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And do you think that the age of the world as determined by scientific dating was based on one sample of bone or rock in one location by one person?

No I think a bunch of idiots are trying to determine the undeterminable and they make assumptions based on preconcieved notions thus dictating their conclusions.

One could say the exact same thing to explain your side of the argument.

Yes and they would be wrong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm sorry you're not bright enough to comprehend it.

Why with the ad hominems?

Not an attack but an observation of facts. I said what I meant and you seemed confused by it and preceeded to twist it to fit your agenda.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No I think a bunch of idiots are trying to determine the undeterminable and they make assumptions based on preconcieved notions thus dictating their conclusions.

One could say the exact same thing to explain your side of the argument.

Yes and they would be wrong.

Because all of our knowledge of chemistry and physics is worthless when compared to what the man in the sky says right? BTW does he talk to you or only to other people who then told you what he said?

Until you can prove to me beyond all doubt that there is indeed a man in the sky then I might say the sum of all knowledge accumulated by man is wrong.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[xotoxi]

I'm sorry you're not bright enough to comprehend it.

Why with the ad hominems?

Not an attack but an observation of facts. I said what I meant and you seemed confused by it and preceeded to twist it to fit your agenda.

Actualy, it was an attack after I spoke the truth about what religion actually is.

 

[xotoxi]

No I think a bunch of idiots are trying to determine the undeterminable and they make assumptions based on preconcieved notions thus dictating their conclusions.

One could say the exact same thing to explain your side of the argument.

Yes and they would be wrong.

Techically no.

I think a bunch of idiots (you and others) are trying to determine the undeterminable (the creation of the Earth) and they make assumptions based on preconcieved notions (that God inspired men to write the World's Best Selling Collection of Fiction) thus dictating their conclusions (that God created the earth 10,000 years ago).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

One could say the exact same thing to explain your side of the argument.

Yes and they would be wrong.

Because all of our knowledge of chemistry and physics is worthless when compared to what the man in the sky says right? BTW does he talk to you or only to other people who then told you what he said?

Until you can prove to me beyond all doubt that there is indeed a man in the sky then I might say the sum of all knowledge accumulated by man is wrong.

But I won't hold my breath.

No.

And no.

I have nothing to prove. I'm not making any claims. I'm simply saying and there's evidence that backs me up, that dating methods are flawed and those that engage in those methods skew the results to fit their conclusions. Hell these idiots use carbon-14, carbon-12, radiocarbon, potassium argon.... dating methods on an object and the results are 150 million years different from each other. So they pick a date that fits their preconcieved notions of how old their theory says the object is.

Carbon dating is a mainstay of geology and archaeology - but an enormous peak discovered in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere between 45 thousand and 11 thousand years ago casts doubt on the biological carbon cycle that underpins the technique.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why with the ad hominems?

Not an attack but an observation of facts. I said what I meant and you seemed confused by it and preceeded to twist it to fit your agenda.

Actualy, it was an attack after I spoke the truth about what religion actually is.

No you spoke about what you think it is. Big difference.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes and they would be wrong.

Because all of our knowledge of chemistry and physics is worthless when compared to what the man in the sky says right? BTW does he talk to you or only to other people who then told you what he said?

Until you can prove to me beyond all doubt that there is indeed a man in the sky then I might say the sum of all knowledge accumulated by man is wrong.

But I won't hold my breath.

No.

And no.

I have nothing to prove. I'm not making any claims. I'm simply saying and there's evidence that backs me up, that dating methods are flawed and those that engage in those methods skew the results to fit their conclusions. Hell these idiots use carbon-14, carbon-12, radiocarbon, potassium argon.... dating methods on an object and the results are 150 million years different from each other. So they pick a date that fits their preconcieved notions of how old their theory says the object is.

Carbon dating is a mainstay of geology and archaeology - but an enormous peak discovered in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere between 45 thousand and 11 thousand years ago casts doubt on the biological carbon cycle that underpins the technique.

Some dating methods are flawed therefore you believe that a book written by a guy who was inspired by the man in the sky is correct.

OK I guess that makes sense.

Tell me would you ignore all clocks because a couple of them are inaccurate?

 

[xotoxi]

Not an attack but an observation of facts. I said what I meant and you seemed confused by it and preceeded to twist it to fit your agenda.

Actualy, it was an attack after I spoke the truth about what religion actually is.

No you spoke about what you think it is. Big difference.

Sorta like this?

No I think a bunch of idiots are trying to determine the undeterminable and they make assumptions based on preconcieved notions thus dictating their conclusions.

 

[xotoxi]

I have nothing to prove. I'm not making any claims. I'm simply saying and there's evidence that backs me up, that dating methods are flawed and those that engage in those methods skew the results to fit their conclusions. Hell these idiots use carbon-14, carbon-12, radiocarbon, potassium argon.... dating methods on an object and the results are 150 million years different from each other. So they pick a date that fits their preconcieved notions of how old their theory says the object is.

Some dating methods are flawed therefore you believe that a book written by a guy who was inspired by the man in the sky is correct.

OK I guess that makes sense.

Tell me would you ignore all clocks because a couple of them are inaccurate?

OH SNAP!!!

 

[Vanquish]

"that backs me up" - that's you...saying you have proof.

idjut

 

[edthecynic]

BTW the Bible was written by men inspired by God. I come to that conclusion by knowing the Bible contains 66 books written over a vast amount of time on three continents in three different languages with authors from every station in life. This ancient text includes matters of love, hate, death, sin, marriage, civil laws, and relationships with each other as well as with God. And although these works were written independently, they show an amazing congruency.

But the God "inspired" them to say the Sun revolves around the Earth, thus calling into question the authority of the men or God.