Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LindaSK said:
The question of the age of the universe is irrelevant to the task of religion

This is a point I think both sides can agree upon.

Just as we, as individuals, may be the only ‘Bible’ some will ever read, the Earth is a ‘book’ with as many mysteries as God Himself. God gave man the ability to reason in an effort to understand the many complicities of our Earth, to attempt, as it were, to ‘read’ the hidden messages beneath its surface and beyond its sky. In this regard, I am willing to accept the vast scientific evidence that supports the age of the Earth to be be between 13.65 billion years and 13.7 billion years old.

I am still somewhat sleep deprived, but I hope there was something rational to my above thoughts!

Merry Christmas!
Peace, good will…
Click to expand...
There is, apart from the fact thats the age of the cosmos, the earth is 4.54 billion :p.
 
rossum said:
At the bottom of Lake Suigetsu there are over 100,000 layers which look like varves, annual layers. When checking the dates of there layers with carbon dating the numbers came out the same from the layer counts and from the carbon dating. This gives independent confirmation of the dating of the layers.

At the bottom of Lake Baikal there are over a million layers. As far as we have been able to check the dates from the layer counts match with the dates from carbon dating.

In the Greenland icecap there are 100,000 layers of ice. Carbon dating has confirmed that these layers are annual. Oxygen isotopes trapped in the ice have confirmed climate data available from elsewhere for ambient temperatures. This is a three-way independent confirmation.

Corals show both daily and annual growth rings. The dating of these rings has been confirmed by looking at solar cycles - they go back well beyond 6,000 years.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to show that the earth is a mere 10,000 years old. We have multiple sources of evidence that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.

We have rocks from Greenland radio-dated to around 4 billion years old. We have meteorites dated to older than that. We have astronomical observations to indicate that the Sun and the solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

When there is multiple independent confirmation then I am prepared to accept the science.

There is very little disagreement among scientists about the age of the earth and the age of the universe. What little disagreement there is might be between 13.65 billion years and 13.7 billion years. A young earth was rejected by science at the beginning of the nineteenth century with the development of geology. A young earth is scientifically laughable.

rossum
Click to expand...
Greenland - The ice is around 12000 feet at the thickest. In the 80’s they went to recover a WWII plane that crashed. There was over 200 feet of ice over the top.

That’s around 5 feet per year give or take.

10000 feet / 5 feet per year = 2000 years. Just sayin…
 
It seems this relies almost entirely on carbon dating, can you tell me how carbon dating works Rossum?
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
It seems this relies almost entirely on carbon dating, can you tell me how carbon dating works Rossum?
Click to expand...
You apply the exponential decy equation-

N(0)=N(1)e^(-λt)

Where N(0) is the initial number of radioactive particles, N(1) is the current number, lambda is the rate of decay, and t is time. Solve for t
 
Quick question, If the universe is 6000 years old then why can we see m31???
 
tjm190 said:
You apply the exponential decy equation-

N(0)=N(1)e^(-λt)

Where N(0) is the initial number of radioactive particles, N(1) is the current number, lambda is the rate of decay, and t is time. Solve for t
Click to expand...
Indeed but for that to be reliable the actual rate of decay of the thing you apply it to has to be constant and always uniform.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Indeed but for that to be reliable the actual rate of decay of the thing you apply it to has to be constant and always uniform.
Click to expand...
And when someone can offer any evidence what so ever in the slightest that these rates vary, then you’ll be in business.
 
Gift_from_God said:
EVERY fundamentalist I’ve seen and met has said that the earth is only 6000-10000 years old. Weren’t the dinosaurs here millions of years ago? Oh, wait, I’ve heard some of them deny they existed
Click to expand...
**There were/are still some Catholic fundamentalists who do not think the following prayer was an April Fools’ joke

Liturgical Reading of Midnight Mass
Solemnity of the Nativity

From the Roman Martyrology

In the twenty-fourth day of the month of December;

In the year five-thousand one-hundred and ninety-nine from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;

In the year two-thousand nine-hundred and fifty-seven from the flood;

In the year two-thousand and fifty-one from the birth of Abraham;

In the year one-thousand five-hundred and ten from the going forth of the people of Israel out of Egypt under Moses;

In the year one-thousand and thirty-two from the anointing of David as king;

In the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel;

In the one-hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;

In the year seven-hundred and fifty-two from the foundation of the city of Rome;

In the forty-second year of the reign of the Emperor Octavian Augustus;

In the sixth age of the world, while the whole earth was at peace— JESUS CHRIST eternal God and the Son of the eternal Father, willing to consecrate the world by His gracious coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and the nine months of His conception being now accomplished, (all kneel) was born in Bethlehem of Judah of the Virgin Mary, made man. The birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh…**
 
tjm190 said:
And when someone can offer any evidence what so ever in the slightest that these rates vary, then you’ll be in business.
Click to expand...
Oh no the onus is not on me to prove that at all it is you who want me to believe your theory so you must prove it to me.

However your challenge does reveal that you have not given carbon dating much thought at all but seem to just take it on faith.

All you need to do is read wikipedia and you would know that carbon in the atmosphere is constantly changing which effects the accuracy of carbon dating and requires the scientists to perform what is known as calibration. Furthermore you will see that some facilities refuse to date anything back further than 60,000 years due to a greater level of uncertainty in the date.

Furthermore there are even differences in carbon depending on what part of the earth the samples come from, the scientists now knowing this are able to correct their results through calibration but they cant do this for millions of years results because they do not and can not know what the local environment was like then.

And this is just me taking 5 minutes to read wikipedia, radio carbon dating is clearly based on kinds of assumptions. I am still open to convincing though if you care to try.

But I don’ see how this could ever meet the requirements of the scientific method to become scientific fact.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Oh no the onus is not on me to prove that at all it is you who want me to believe your theory so you must prove it to me.

However your challenge does reveal that you have not given carbon dating much thought at all but seem to just take it on faith.

All you need to do is read wikipedia and you would know that carbon in the atmosphere is constantly changing which effects the accuracy of carbon dating and requires the scientists to perform what is known as calibration. Furthermore you will see that some facilities refuse to date anything back further than 60,000 years due to a greater level of uncertainty in the date.

Furthermore there are even differences in carbon depending on what part of the earth the samples come from, the scientists now knowing this are able to correct their results through calibration but they cant do this for millions of years results because they do not and can not know what the local environment was like then.

And this is just me taking 5 minutes to read wikipedia, radio carbon dating is clearly based on kinds of assumptions. I am still open to convincing though if you care to try.
Click to expand...
carbon dating is not used to date the earth. Again how can it be we can see m31?
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Oh no the onus is not on me to prove that at all it is you who want me to believe your theory so you must prove it to me.

However your challenge does reveal that you have not given carbon dating much thought at all but seem to just take it on faith.

All you need to do is read wikipedia and you would know that carbon in the atmosphere is constantly changing which effects the accuracy of carbon dating and requires the scientists to perform what is known as calibration. Furthermore you will see that some facilities refuse to date anything back further than 60,000 years due to a greater level of uncertainty in the date.

Furthermore there are even differences in carbon depending on what part of the earth the samples come from, the scientists now knowing this are able to correct their results through calibration but they cant do this for millions of years results because they do not and can not know what the local environment was like then.

And this is just me taking 5 minutes to read wikipedia, radio carbon dating is clearly based on kinds of assumptions. I am still open to convincing though if you care to try.

But I don’ see how this could ever meet the requirements of the scientific method to become scientific fact.
Click to expand...
Carbon dating in general isn’t used for things older than 60,000 years as you said- you we can carbon date woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers but beyond that other methods are at play.

Edit- it is impossible to prove something is always constant. However, if it were variable, that proof should come easy
 
AlbertBall said:
carbon dating is not used to date the earth. Again how can it be we can see m31?
Click to expand...
Which part of the earth the sample comes from can effect the date you will get for the sample, so you can get a different date for a sample from 2000BC found in one part of the earth to another sample from 2000BC found in a different geographic location.

The actual date for both samples is the same but the raw carbon dating before calibration would give different results. It is only because scientists know what the difference is and apply them in calibration that the dates would be accurate.

But scientists do not have the necessary data to apply calibration for million of years.

The point is changes to the earth and even the local environment effect the dates returned by carbon dating. As such any scientist dating things for millions of years is merely guessing, it may be an informed guess based on scientific theories but it is still a guess.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Which part of the earth the sample comes from effects the date you will get for the sample, so you will get a different date for a sample from 2000BC found in one part of the earth to another sample from 2000BC found in a different geographic location.

The actual date for both samples is the same but the raw carbon dating before calibration would give different results. It is only because scientists know what the difference is and apply them in calibration that the dates would be accurate.

But scientists do not have the necessary data to apply calibration for million of years.

The point is changes to the earth and even the local environment effect the dates returned by carbon dating. As such any scientist dating things for millions of years is merely guessing, it may be an informed guess based on scientific theories but it is still a guess.
Click to expand...
I noticed you didn’t answer his question
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top