Topic: How old is earth - page 8. (Read 12917 times)

Since the planet Earth doesn't have a birth certificate to record its formation, scientists have spent hundreds of years struggling to determine the age of the planet. By dating the rocks in the ever-changing crust, as well as neighbors such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years.

So, you are trying to hide the fact that carbon dating doesn't tell us anything about the age of the earth, right?


There isn't any doubt that carbon dating works. It works very well, in fact. It's just that it can't be applied beyond 4,500 years ago, or so. Why not? Because up to 4,500 years in the past is all the further back we can go with standard "pottery-style" dating methods. What do standard "pottery-style" dating methods have to do with it? We don't know beyond that time how much C-14 was in the atmosphere IF ANY. And the further back we go, the less certain about C-14 in the atmosphere we become.

Now, this wouldn't be so bad if the scientists and the media and the books all said it straight out, rather than trying to hide the fact that we don't know if carbon dating can be accurately applied beyond 4,500 years back.



We don't know that earth was hot. Without even considering what religions say, we simply don't know that earth was hot in the first place. All that formation of stars and planets info is simply unproven theory. The FACT is that we just don't know about heat on the earth in the distant past.

Wake up. You are becoming denser than the earth's core.

Yeah, there's always an amusing love-hate relationship between BADlogic and carbon dating. He just cherrypicks when it works and when it doesn't, desperately trying to patch up his untenable beliefs.

Young earth oddballs try desperately to instill doubt in carbon dating, yet if they paid a little more attention to what was going on they would discover, to their horror, that heat is their downfall.

Earth could not of possibly cooled down quickly enough in their absurd timeframe. Heat we are talking about here is enough to easily boil all earths oceans to steam.

Amusing.

The standard light speed is suggested at 186,000 miles per second. Point 1 % is 18,600 MPS. Even the suggested variation and deviation by Sheldrake and others is less than that.

The point is, nobody knows what it was 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, or at the time of the creation before light was created, when the stabilization of the "stuff" that the electro-magnetic energies are made of hadn't settled down yet.

If you are a Big Bang believer, even the first several seconds of the BB show us that the whole electromagnetic spectrum acted quite differently than it does now. All we have is speculation about the past.

The thing to look for is the best speculation. The Bible record is the best we have, because it is eye-witness accounts of the times of the stubborn Hebrew people. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.

The people of the Hebrews unvaryingly upheld the information about family lines and other things that go back to the Beginning. Do you know how stubborn they are? And family is the thing that they stubbornly hold to the most.

I can still remember our school caretaker build a machine to determine the speed of light for our 7/8th physics class. He could determine the speed of light with less then 0.1% failure rate.

It is not hard to use your brain to think - you just need some patience and endurance.

Internet researcher.

Are you a first hand experimenter who has proven the speed of light?

6 billion years according to science

It's all clear around conspiracies You are the one who privately said that the speed of light, and not as savsem, which everyone knows. And most importantly, you personally, because this knowledge to the real speed of light? Are you a scientist? Are you a politician? Or you just do not what activities?

LOL!

Here you are. You can't answer the point that the speed of light is variable. So you distract into the idea that galaxies formed later.

Well, the whole BB doesn't have any known thing factual behind it. So it doesn't matter at all.

The thing that matters is that the scientific community is trying hard to hide the fact that the speed of light isn't constant, and that they know a lot less than they claim to know.

No that is not what it suggests.

Galaxies formed billion years after the big bang, when the universe started cooling down.

Big Bang suggests that in an instant, stars, planets, all kinds of materials and energy were spewed from a single point into a gigantic size, and continued to expand at both, increasing velocities in some places, and decreasing velocities in others. The speed of light could absolutely not have been uniform back then.

If you search for it, you can find scientific data that shows that the speed of light isn't an uniform thing right now, long after things have stabilized. Google and Youtube search on "Sheldrake, speed of light."


This is the exact thing that we are talking about. Why do we and scientists think like this?

Pottery dating based on civilization backwards-in-time extrapolation can only go back more-or-less accurately, about 4,500 years, if that.

Genetic and mitochondrial dating suggest a divergence from the original woman to be not that far back in history.

When you look at the basic scientific papers by those scientists who have done dating studies, all of the papers use limiting words like "if" and "maybe" and "we think" and "possibly," and even direct statements that tell us that they are only speculating regarding the time of things.

Evolution is mathematically impossible - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732. Google it and you will find that even the debunkers of the impossibility math show by their language that they are not sure even when they say that they are sure.



If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere beyond 5,000 years ago, carbon dating suggestions would only be off by billions of years. Nobody knows for a fact that there was C-14 in the atmosphere back then. The closest we have is the Bible record that suggests that there was a high-water-content upper atmosphere which would block the cosmic rays necessary for converting nitrogen into C-14. The Great Flood of Noah's day - which is referenced in writings and cave drawings are and traditions of many peoples around the world - could easily have destroyed the upper atmosphere water curtain, so that C-14 in the atmosphere is only a recent thing. The point is, nobody ever went back there to analyze what it was like back then. And none of those people left us a clear enough scientific record so that we know. We only guess. Carbon dating is all a guess.

How long does it take to fossilize something? Google it. The standard suggested scientific minimum is 10,000 years. There is present day evidence that it can take as short as a few months. But here is the big question. How long does it take for something to rot? Yet in some of the so-called ancient fossils we see delicate tissues being preserved. Delicate tissues don't last for even 3 months in the presence of the putrification process. The point is, fossilization is a very inaccurate science. It is another science that suggests something that we only guess at.



The point is, somehow the sciences that we use to determine the age of the earth, have been treated as fact when there is little if any fact in the results. We could talk all day on this. But you can easily search the Internet for debunking and attempted debunking, this way and that, to see for yourself that we really don't know.

There have been some coins and vases that date back to 30,000 years. Carbon dating is not precise but no way would miss 24,000 years.

First of all, I'm no expert in physics, is there a source on the first point? Just that the idea the first person suggested sounds fairly reasonable, I'm wondering what the evidence is against it?

Secondly, we have a pretty good idea of what happened 6,200 years ago. In geological time 6,200 years is a blink of an eye. In fact, humans had been around for a while 6,200 years ago, and had already developed agriculture and basic civilizations. The lineages that would develop into modern day humans first diverged from chimpanzees(our closest relative in evolutionary terms) 6,000,000 years ago, and anatomically, behaviourally modern humans had developed by 50,000 years ago.

I don't really see the idea of the last point - we have a lot of experience with molecular and geological dating methods as well as study of the fossil records that gives strong evidence for a lot of the information we have now about the history of nature, the Earth, and our own species and its evolution.

You must be too lazy to go to wikipedia and read it, you can actually do it in 15 seconds.

Even Big Bang Theory suggests holes in the light distance thing listed above.

Nobody knows what happened scientifically in the creation 6,200 years ago or so.

If you see a wall of solid concrete, but never saw a cement truck, or saw one dump concrete, you might have all kinds of suggestions and theories about how that wall got there.

There are a great many ways to estimate age of planetary bodies, not just radioactive decay. 

The speed of light is something to consider.  If, say the earth was 6000 years old, the universe would have no stars farther away than 6000 light years.  And new ones beyond that would be popping into existence all the time, as the sphere expanded.  That's not what's happening.

The light from some stars has traveled a billion years to get to us.

Don't know what goat herders have to say, but Moses' info about what to write, directly from God, is the best we have.

And the wild guess of goat herders from the iron age with no education what so ever is so much better..

People talking that  earth age is around 4,5 millards, but we will never know how old is earth without better technolagy and new scientiests.

The thing that is basically wrong with it doesn't have anything to do with scientific discovery and examination. The thing that is wrong is that we are being lied to (not necessarily by the scientists themselves). We are being told that this or that is the scientific truth, when much of the time the scientific truth is not known. Lying to people is wrong.