Page 1 of 6
#1
Okay, so I'm having a debate with a friend about how long ago dinosaurs existed. [and on a loose note, how old the world is] He is a Christian, and believes that the world was created less than 10000 years ago. [yes, ten thousand] I'm not really that knowledgeable on the topic, and it seems that what I thought could measure age back millions of years [carbon dating] can only measure 50000 or so.

Does anyone have any links/sources or whatever that can give a reliable way to measure back how old things are [I'm talking millions of years? I googled it, and I'm just being bombarded with Christian sites...

I sorta stumbled upon radiometric dating, but I can't really seem to find any convincing arguments for that either.

Thanks.
O! music: Click (Youtube)


^ Click to see an acoustic arrangement of Ke$ha's 'Your Love is my Drug' - everyone's favourite song.
#2
im probably saying this because im a creationist christian as well, but maybe there arent any convincing arguments...
Gear
Epiphone G-400
Orange Tiny Terror
Marshall 1936 2x12 Cabinet
Blackstar HT-Dual
MXR 10-Band EQ
#3
Quote by Snowblind 911
Okay, so I'm having a debate with a friend about how long ago dinosaurs existed. [and on a loose note, how old the world is] He is a Christian, and believes that the world was created less than 10000 years ago. [yes, ten thousand] I'm not really that knowledgeable on the topic, and it seems that what I thought could measure age back millions of years [carbon dating] can only measure 50000 or so.

Does anyone have any links/sources or whatever that can give a reliable way to measure back how old things are [I'm talking millions of years? I googled it, and I'm just being bombarded with Christian sites...

I sorta stumbled upon radiometric dating, but I can't really seem to find any convincing arguments for that either.

Thanks.


Hand him a copy of "the god Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and tell him to enjoy the read
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#4
You can try calling a Paleontologist from a university and ask him about it.

Then you can pwn your friend with dinosaur facts and he'll be like: "Oh yeah, well I am still smarter than you because I can beat you at chess." then you'd be like: "Oh no you didn't. Chess is a game and dinosaurs are animals. You are being silly and off topic."
#5
Carbon Dating is unreliable, because it goes on the breakdown of CO2 (from memory, this is what I remember from Chem last year so I may be wrong). And so depending on how much C + O2 they will guess, but if there's an unaverage amount then it's confusing and disorienting

/pointless information
Need Singing Advice?; Read the first page then ask questions.

Quote by punkman_123
Damn Auals, you're messed up. :P


Quote by ZanasCross
This just reminded me of the time that my brother in law texted his mom on the night after his wedding. All it said was "Consummated."
#6
Quote by polaroidvision
im probably saying this because im a creationist christian as well, but maybe there arent any convincing arguments...


You are probably right

I can't even count the number of convincing arguments for creation

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#7
There isn't one single method of measuring the age of rocks, fossils and the like. There are many, used by different research groups, which are part of different fields of science, who do not collaborate, and they all reach the same conclusion on their own.

Your best bet is to go to a university and ask a biologist, zoologist, a paleontologist, etc, because these aren't simple matters and it takes a specialist to properly explain them and point you in the right direction.

If your friend truly believes that the Earth is 10000 years old, he's an idiot. And if he's a devout Christian, NO arguments will persuade him, so you'd be wasting your time trying to explain to him that he's wrong.
Dear God, do you actually answer prayers?

Yes, but only in a way indistinguishable from random luck or the result of your own efforts.
#8
Quote by Carswell98
Hand him a copy of "the god Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and tell him to enjoy the read


He just gave me a link to

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900/

???

Quote by Metal claw
You can try calling a Paleontologist from a university and ask him about it.

Then you can pwn your friend with dinosaur facts and he'll be like: "Oh yeah, well I am still smarter than you because I can beat you at chess." then you'd be like: "Oh no you didn't. Chess is a game and dinosaurs are animals. You are being silly and off topic."


Good idea.

Quote by Auals
Carbon Dating is unreliable, because it goes on the breakdown of CO2 (from memory, this is what I remember from Chem last year so I may be wrong). And so depending on how much C + O2 they will guess, but if there's an unaverage amount then it's confusing and disorienting

/pointless information


Yeah, and apparently the breakdown time is no longer than 50000 years or so, so it can't measure past then because then there isn't any to measure.
O! music: Click (Youtube)


^ Click to see an acoustic arrangement of Ke$ha's 'Your Love is my Drug' - everyone's favourite song.
#9
Quote by Snowblind 911


as soon as he did that you are ****ed, you cannot convince him, as soon as a creationist can find some anti-evolution propaganda made by an educated Christian it automatically super-cedes anything you wish to prove to him

EVEN THOUGH RICHARD DAWKINS IS ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED PALEO-ANTHROPOLOGISTS IN THE WORLD

and...

MOST SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH HIM

just be confident that you are right
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#10
It depends on the isotope of carbon being used. Basically how it works is that when things are alive there is a certain ratio of carbon isotopes. When the thing dies, the radioactive isotopes (like carbon 14) deteriorate, altering these ratios. By calculating the isotope ratios of old bones, an age can be estimated. For the record: This has nothing to do with chemical changes. It's all about nuclear physics

For example, if there is half the amount of carbon 14 than there should be when the thing was alive, then the thing died one half life of carbon 14 ago. A half life of carbon 14 is 5730 ± 40 years (says wikipedia anyway, I didn't know it off the top of my head). This means carbon dating is only accurate to about 20 000 years maybe. Bad luck for your argument.

I'll look up some alternative ways of approaching it, I'm on your side in this debate. Creationism = phail. In most religious contexts that is. We could all be in a matrix!
Last edited by shigidab0p at Nov 26, 2007,
#11
Actually, there are good arguments to be made for an old or a young earth, and for creationism and evolution.

Anyone who denies that both sides are viable is an idiot. Plain and simple. You have to stay open minded, if you become close minded, you have lost and need to give up at life.


Carbon dating is unreliable. Samples of things made inthe last 10 years can show on some tests that they are millions of years old. It is based on assumptions that we cannot show hold true. The fossil record is dated based on where it is found in layers of rock, and those dates are based on where the fossils were found in the rock. It's a little bit of circular reasoning.

Ultimately, we have to remember that science can only show what is happening in the present and make predicitions about the future. It cannot tell the past, that is history's job. Also, science cannot prove anything, and any theory that is not falsifiable is bogus.

A simple evolutionistic model is no longer discussed in the higher circles, it just couldn't happen. It has to be unbelievably complex. The idea of a big bang, and creatures evolving from a soupy substance involves more faith than some Creationist teachings But, there are good things to be said for some of the very complex models that evolutionists have come up with. What it all boils down to is that it is not very simple at all, and we should really stop the name calling and mud slinging, as both sides are right on some issues, and wrong on others.
#12
Quote by Snowblind 911

Yeah, and apparently the breakdown time is no longer than 50000 years or so, so it can't measure past then because then there isn't any to measure.


thats the halflife

that means in 50000 years half of it to decay
another 50000 for another quarter
another 50000 for another eighth
etc...

Quote by JahJahwarrior
Actually, there are good arguments to be made for an old or a young earth, and for creationism and evolution.

No, there are no viable arguments for young earth creation


Quote by JahJahwarrior
Ultimately, we have to remember that science can only show what is happening in the present and make predicitions about the future. It cannot tell the past, that is history's job. Also, science cannot prove anything, and any theory that is not falsifiable is bogus.

the thing, people have only been writing down history...since they've been able to write
and we kind of need science to figure out what happened before that

and if science can't prove anything, what can?

Quote by JahJahwarrior

A simple evolutionistic model is no longer discussed in the higher circles, it just couldn't happen. It has to be unbelievably complex. The idea of a big bang, and creatures evolving from a soupy substance involves more faith than some Creationist teachings But, there are good things to be said for some of the very complex models that evolutionists have come up with. What it all boils down to is that it is not very simple at all, and we should really stop the name calling and mud slinging, as both sides are right on some issues, and wrong on others.


I don't see what the problem is with evolution, abiogenesis maybe i'd understand but evolution is probably ****ing happening RIGHT NOW somewhere on this planet.
Last edited by seljer at Nov 26, 2007,
#13
Link

This is a pretty good article that addresses Creationists' usual arguments and you could show your friend. But I'm sure he won't listen if he's already giving you links.


I'll have a bourbon.
#14
Quote by Mad Marius
If your friend truly believes that the Earth is 10000 years old, he's an idiot. And if he's a devout Christian, NO arguments will persuade him, so you'd be wasting your time trying to explain to him that he's wrong.


Every word of that is true. There's no way you're gonna convince him. I have a friend just like that




#15


I have it

our Universe is incredibly expansive right

1-Some stars are hundreds of thousands of light years away

2-We can see them

therefore, the universe must be of sufficient age for the light to have travelled a journey that could take no less time than those hundreds of thousands of years

it isn't the 10 billion the the Universe actually is

But it sure pile-drives his 10 000 years thing
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#16
Quote by Snowblind 911



Tell your friend that site proves nothing. That logic is so flawed I nearly cry. Of course that book is inherently biased toward there being no god, that's the whole bloody point of it. If that discounts its credibility, then the bible isn't credible either owing to its inherent bias towards there being a god. QED.
#17
Quote by JahJahwarrior
Actually, there are good arguments to be made for an old or a young earth, and for creationism and evolution.

Anyone who denies that both sides are viable is an idiot. Plain and simple. You have to stay open minded, if you become close minded, you have lost and need to give up at life.


Carbon dating is unreliable. Samples of things made inthe last 10 years can show on some tests that they are millions of years old. It is based on assumptions that we cannot show hold true. The fossil record is dated based on where it is found in layers of rock, and those dates are based on where the fossils were found in the rock. It's a little bit of circular reasoning.

Ultimately, we have to remember that science can only show what is happening in the present and make predicitions about the future. It cannot tell the past, that is history's job. Also, science cannot prove anything, and any theory that is not falsifiable is bogus.

A simple evolutionistic model is no longer discussed in the higher circles, it just couldn't happen. It has to be unbelievably complex. The idea of a big bang, and creatures evolving from a soupy substance involves more faith than some Creationist teachings But, there are good things to be said for some of the very complex models that evolutionists have come up with. What it all boils down to is that it is not very simple at all, and we should really stop the name calling and mud slinging, as both sides are right on some issues, and wrong on others.


Have you read the principles of String theory?

fascinating stuff

also there is a book on the complexities of evolution I just read (also by richard dawkins)

It's called "Climbing mount Improbable"
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#18
Quote by Carswell98


I have it

our Universe is incredibly expansive right

1-Some stars are hundreds of thousands of light years away

2-We can see them

therefore, the universe must be of sufficient age for the light to have travelled a journey that could take no less time than those hundreds of thousands of years

it isn't the 10 billion the the Universe actually is

But it sure pile-drives his 10 000 years thing


Creationists would just tell you that light travels instantly because god made it so.
Dear God, do you actually answer prayers?

Yes, but only in a way indistinguishable from random luck or the result of your own efforts.
#19
Quote by Mad Marius
Creationists would just tell you that light travels instantly because god made it so.


then I would present your Penn Avatar and walk away

edit-I love those guys so much, teller is my hero
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
Last edited by Carswell98 at Nov 26, 2007,
#21
Quote by Snowblind 911


Like we all said, Give up, but make it perfectly clear to him that there is no proof of god, the tell him to shove his Christian propaganda up his... oh sorry, sodomy is a sin
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#22
This argument can't be proved logic from the non-creationist, because the religious one can easily make the valid point that a god can transcend worldly logic.

The best point for the creationist is that their opinions are backed up with many independent sources of investigation, while creationism is mostly based on the bible or another religious text. Contrastingly, the only thing creationism really has going for it is faith. And the bible itself asserts that faith is illusionary: "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1, New International Version). Note that it doesn't say anywhere that what one is sure of has to be correct, or based on any logic at all.

"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." ~ St. Augustine

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." ~ H.L. Mencken

And a more lighthearted one:

"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing." "Oh," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't." "Oh, I hadn't thought of that." says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. - Douglas Adams
#23
Quote by shigidab0p

And a more lighthearted one:

"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing." "Oh," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't." "Oh, I hadn't thought of that." says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. - Douglas Adams


I'll always love that one

because it's from the second best movie of all time, and my favorite book
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#24
Quote by Carswell98
then I would present your Penn Avatar and walk away

edit-I love those guys so much, teller is my hero


Yes, "Bullshit" is awesome. How they managed to make 5 seasons is beyond me, they must get 172 lawsuits every second.
Dear God, do you actually answer prayers?

Yes, but only in a way indistinguishable from random luck or the result of your own efforts.
#25
Christianity is stubborn now, even though we have dinosaurs and Joan Rivers, they still think the world is 10,000 years old

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#26
Quote by Carswell98


I have it

our Universe is incredibly expansive right

1-Some stars are hundreds of thousands of light years away

2-We can see them

therefore, the universe must be of sufficient age for the light to have travelled a journey that could take no less time than those hundreds of thousands of years

it isn't the 10 billion the the Universe actually is

But it sure pile-drives his 10 000 years thing


win
#27
Neither side can be proven. People just choose which ever they are more comfortable with. Even the most high tech aging techniques make many assumptions about things being constant when it is impossible to tell if they were 10,000 years ago and don't take into account things like the supposed flood.

The God Delusion is just as bias as many of the creationism websites there are about. It is written in such a way that it seems logical but really it is just a set of conclusions reached from some indefinite results and a lot of guesswork.

Quote by shigidab0p
It depends on the isotope of carbon being used. Basically how it works is that when things are alive there is a certain ratio of carbon isotopes. When the thing dies, the radioactive isotopes (like carbon 14) deteriorate, altering these ratios. By calculating the isotope ratios of old bones, an age can be estimated. For the record: This has nothing to do with chemical changes. It's all about nuclear physics

For example, if there is half the amount of carbon 14 than there should be when the thing was alive, then the thing died one half life of carbon 14 ago. A half life of carbon 14 is 5730 ± 40 years (says wikipedia anyway, I didn't know it off the top of my head). This means carbon dating is only accurate to about 20 000 years maybe. Bad luck for your argument.

I'll look up some alternative ways of approaching it, I'm on your side in this debate. Creationism = phail. In most religious contexts that is. We could all be in a matrix!


Carbon dating is easily the least accurate method of dating used. It estimated a living snail was almost 300000 years old....
#28
Christians by their own admission have blind faith in God and the concept that he created the universe.

Therefor for every piece of evidence science can put forward (which is open to debate and speculation) Christians will shut their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and recite some stuff they were told or read in a book many thousands of years old (which they are not allowed to question)

"about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."



I worry about the US sometimes
Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
Wiggy = legend.

Devil's Advocate
#29
On this topic of a snail being dated as ancient, I've never heard of this? Source?

As it does rely on a knowledge of how much Carbon-14 is in a live animal, they could have used some completely inaccurate number for the snail. Or it could be like oddly radioactive, lol. TBH I think that story is a load of wank, it's like saying a thermometer read 200 degrees c at room temperature, there simply isn't any way that well done carbon dating can be that innacurate.
#30
Quote by Carswell98


I have it

our Universe is incredibly expansive right

1-Some stars are hundreds of thousands of light years away

2-We can see them

therefore, the universe must be of sufficient age for the light to have travelled a journey that could take no less time than those hundreds of thousands of years

it isn't the 10 billion the the Universe actually is

But it sure pile-drives his 10 000 years thing


i was under the impression the universe was 13.7 billion years old
Quote by hug a llama
Dude, if a title read "penis pics, come on in" I think about 93% of UG would still click on it.


Quote by Burpin'Worm
Nonsense. I'm telling you, nothing makes the fairer sex swoon like an extensive knowledge of siege weaponry and medieval battle tactics.
#31
Quote by Zero-Hartman
Christianity is stubborn now, even though we have dinosaurs and Joan Rivers, they still think the world is 10,000 years old


Clearly dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by god for us to find. It all makes sense.
#32
Quote by Snowblind 911
Okay, so I'm having a debate with a friend about how long ago dinosaurs existed. [and on a loose note, how old the world is] He is a Christian, and believes that the world was created less than 10000 years ago. [yes, ten thousand] I'm not really that knowledgeable on the topic, and it seems that what I thought could measure age back millions of years [carbon dating] can only measure 50000 or so.

Does anyone have any links/sources or whatever that can give a reliable way to measure back how old things are [I'm talking millions of years? I googled it, and I'm just being bombarded with Christian sites...

I sorta stumbled upon radiometric dating, but I can't really seem to find any convincing arguments for that either.

Thanks.

You won't find anything to prove the christian wrong. They say the world was created 6000 years ago and that the fossils and such pointing to the Earth going back several million years were put there because god wants to test our faith. There's really no way to prove them wrong, because they're better at making loopholes than lawyers.
I'm a communist. Really.
#33
Quote by JahJahwarrior
Actually, there are good arguments to be made for an old or a young earth, and for creationism and evolution.

Anyone who denies that both sides are viable is an idiot. Plain and simple. You have to stay open minded, if you become close minded, you have lost and need to give up at life.


The irony...

Quote by JahJahwarrior
Ultimately, we have to remember that science can only show what is happening in the present and make predicitions about the future. It cannot tell the past, that is history's job. Also, science cannot prove anything, and any theory that is not falsifiable is bogus.


Oh dear...

Quote by JahJahwarrior
A simple evolutionistic model is no longer discussed in the higher circles, it just couldn't happen. It has to be unbelievably complex. The idea of a big bang, and creatures evolving from a soupy substance involves more faith than some Creationist teachings But, there are good things to be said for some of the very complex models that evolutionists have come up with. What it all boils down to is that it is not very simple at all, and we should really stop the name calling and mud slinging, as both sides are right on some issues, and wrong on others.


No, you're wrong.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#34
^^
0_o ......Methsai?

Oh and just so I'm being productive, other than the bible there's no proof of creationism. But there is immense amounts of things written proving evolution to be true. The arguements only carry on because Christians refuse to accept it.

Fair enough, believe what you like, but please be indignant quietly as it's very annoying.
Last edited by Mistress_Ibanez at Nov 26, 2007,
#36
Here, read this...

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

I'm too lazy to paraphrase it for you. Or, you could read his book, "The Science of God". Or, read any book for that matter...

Quote by Kensai

Oh dear...


He is right...science can not prove anything absolutely.

The scientific method is flawed.
#37
Quote by denizenz

He is right...science can not prove anything absolutely.

The scientific method is flawed.


Yeah, what a waste of money, all that research and not one result.
Dear God, do you actually answer prayers?

Yes, but only in a way indistinguishable from random luck or the result of your own efforts.