[Regarding the science behind radiometric dating techniques]
I don't really know about any of this and just because you have cited a few things does not mean that I know any more. I would have to know all the perameters involved. Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5. (face-palm smiley)
24 comments
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that nobody does.
Besides, if you can believe 3.78 billion years, why is it such a stretch for you to believe 4.5 billion?
Her reply a little later in the topic:
That's not even an order of magnitude difference!
Are you sure you're not using an old approximation?
Also... not really... offensive or fundie... The source suggests that it's a fundie talking, but this one isn't rascist, a pompous ass, nothing. They're downright humble! Well, so far as the "fundies" that appear here go.
I've always found it easy to take a published scientific conclusion on faith, because scientists are required to show their work, and I can study it for myself, as well as hear the scholarly debate. It is implicit to everyone in Scienceland that a paradigm might suddenly shift, corroborated by careful understanding of physical evidence. It's fun as well as edifying to watch that happen.
In this example, if different geologists in different labs in different countries use different techniques on the same target, and all get results that cluster around 4.5 gigayears...QED.
I'm sure if someone came up with a credible explanation for an estimate of 3.5 billion instead of 4.5 billion, scientists would at least consider the evidence. The creationists challenging radiometric dating are trying to say it's 6,000 years, and no one who understands the science except a handful of fanatics is willing to accept that much of an error.
That's some nice sarcasm you've got there I guess. Really ~4.5 billion years isn't as exact as you think. Nobody says that the Earth is exactly 4.5 billion years old, or 4,500,384,463 years or some shit. There's a Hell of a lot of leeway in that estimate because radiometric dating isn't /that/ exact. It is, however, accurate enough for us to know beyond any doubt that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. In fact, we know that beyond any doubt without dating the Earth at all! (see basic geology)
"there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5. "
This has to be a joke, not a real fundie.
Okay, since logic eludes you, lets try simple math then.
3.78B years > 6000 years.
Even if you blunt the number, your figures are WAY out of whack.
Why is this on this site? Obviously I was being faceteous. (Well of course, that is, I mean ... "obvious to most of the world") I realize I am talking with "great thinkers" who can't really relate to the rest of the world. It was really just a post to maybe get someone who DID know something to come forth. There were a couple thankfully but the most of them were like the most of you (not all of you) just mean mouth with nothing to say. By the way did any of you mean mouth guys check that you were human?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
