This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
no, any dating that goes back further than when we have items that are confirmed of that age is useless, whether that date be 2000 years, 4000 years, or 20 thousand years...the question is, what do we know 100% is 10,000 years old without science? What do we have that talks of things happening thousands of years ago? Where is a building iwth historical documents saying it was there 10,000 years ago?That is needed to date something at 10,000 years...
but why do you suppose it is always the same?easy, it supports your beliefs...that is why science sees it that way, because there is BIAS beforehand...
but you can't say its constant, you don't know that... it is GUESSED at being constant, you just said before that science can't prove anything...*note: "you" is the plural "whoever-is-reading-this" form, not u specifically Jericho... }=O)
No, you don't guess. You test it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.By the way, that was abbreviated. Science would test it a LOT more than that.
ok, but here is the thing:how can you test something that no one alive EVER knows the right answer to? How do you test the truth of something that cannot be proved to be positive? How can you test how something decayed after a certain time IF no one really knew the rate of decay and, quite honestly, no one can really say what the rate of decay is for sure of if there is a jump in taht rate...
But you'd have to test it infinity times to really be sure for real. And only God can do that. And that's just tough titty, because he's a creationist, not a scientist.
I suppose lots of things absent evidence to the contrary. I suppose that gravity is going to continue to operate five minute, 10 days, and 20 years from now. That's why I haven't bolted my sofa to the floor.Now, if someone could show me some solid scientific evidence that gravity is likely to stop working, perhaps I'd have my tool box out right now.Your logic would presume that I can't prove that shining path isn't in actuality a hyper-literate turtle from a planet bordering Betelgeuse. You're basically arguing that nothing is knowable. Perhaps that's true, but some things are far more plausible and every damn fool argument isn't equal.
In retrospect, that would have been a good policy.
it doesn't matter, to say something is constant further back than you can prove it is constant is reaching...If you have no benchmark past 10,000 years, you can't age something more than 10,000 years...
This is why I refuse to believe in anything older than 32 years, 8 months and 8 days.
good job there... ignore what I say by taking it to the absolute opposite extreme...I really love how people who don't believe in Creation/Christianity just use sarcasm/insults to argue thier side and NEVER actually say anything and NEVER actually listen to a word that is said... I'd have a better conversation with a wall than most of the people in this thread...
why? seriously...
This is seriously the best post I have ever seen in any thread, ever.
I'm not saying that dating isn't right...I'm simply saying that dating cannot be PROVEN to be right no matter how much testing is done until you know how old something is FOR SURE...you can't be 100% sure if you don't have something that is confirmed before dating to be 65,000,000 years old that the dating that says it is 65,000,000 years old is true....
There is a supernova 169,000 light-years away -- SN1987A -- whose radioactive isotopes are, based on the observable gamma rays they emit, behaving in accordance with current decay rates.So for at least the past 169,000 years or so, decay rates have remained constant.
ok, and are we sure that earth's atmosphere wouldn't mess with that?*not a science person really... just curious*also, did u guys look up those lizards/dinosaurs I posted on like page 4? Seriously, some pretty interesting stuff... }=O)oh yeah... and that still isn't 65,000,000 or billions/trillions of years...
You're overly optimistic. The correct cut-off is much more recent. It is Last Tuesday.
If walls could talk.........
Come on, MT, you're better than that. Clearly, God created the observable radiation which has reached us for observation already transit to us, so it doesn't reflect a constant which existed prior to 10,000 years ago, because you can't prove it took 169,000 years to get here. Besides, you're assuming that the speed of light has always been constant, and we can't be sure of anything being constant unless someone was around to observe it and write it down.Creationism is fun.
And there you go presupposing that the speed of light has been constant for the last 169,000 years. And that "logically" leads us to conclude that the speed of light and decay rates have slowed down significantly together, just as the bible says.
Yes.
I'd love to ignore what you say. But the fact that you don't see how your logic (it might help to picture me making sarcastic air quotes here) is no less abusrd than what I posted speaks volume of which of us should play the wall or a similar inanimate object in this discussion.If you honestly believe that the myriad dating technologies that scientists agree to use based on a variety of observable scientific phenomena can all be proven invalid by the supposition that every one of the physical laws that govern those tests have changed at some time, then yeah, you're a moron.
of course, if radioactive decay had slowed to the degree that it is inaccurately measuring billions of years for what is accurately 10,000 years, the radiation 10,000 years ago would have been enough to cook the planet and eliminate all liquid water. not quite a garden of eden.
and you would have no idea what that is...of course then again you are probably right, since you think creationism =...*bites tongue and moves on...*
just checkin' }=O)again, no real idea...ok, so, there is nothing that can mess with that rate of decay? and we know 169,000 years... what about the toher 100,000,000,000 or whatever amount of years?
Well, if we've got you convinced on 169,000 years, I think that pretty much wipes out the literal biblical creationism argument of around 6,000, doesn't it?
actually this made me think of something...what would this do to radioactive decay:1. mist come up every morning (no rain, no snow, no precipitation of any sort)2. everything lives longer (humans to like 900 years, etc.)...3. a canopy around the earth that acts like a greenhouse keeping the whole planet extra warm, etc...4. teh layer of water (canopy) above the earth falls down (rain) and covers the whole planet with water, meanwhile every fault line (almost) is created while the contenints (sp?) devide and valcanoes go off...could stuff like this mess with radioactive decay?
you don't really have me convinced about creation/evolution/etc...you just have me convinced that radioactive decay is constant...you still need to explain why modern lizards look and are built like dinosaurs...
Yes. That would render all prior scientific observation meaningless. Mist is a bugger like that.
like you?
We know it for a zillion years. Decay rates aren't arbitrary. They follow from the laws of quantum mechanics. For the decay rate of any element to change, some fundamental physical constant would have to change. But any such change would affect the decay rates of different elements quite differently, and this would have observable consequences.
I think that must have been what Heisenberg was talking about."You can't be certain of anything with all this ####### MIST around!"
What kind of lizard looks like a Triceratops? Or a Diplodocus?
If you could say that on my voicemail in a thick, German accent, I'd be eternally grateful.
"Particle? Vere is zee particle? I vant to meazhure zee position, and I vant to meazhure zee speed. But I can't even find mein goggles vis all zis mist!"And what kind is built like an emu?
Could it be because the dinosaurs were large lizards while modern lizards are in fact lizards?
It's a little more fundamental than that. Any change in the physical constants that govern the decay of atomic nuclei is going to change the fundmental properties of matter. It's not a question of whether carbon based life-forms age a little faster than normal, it's a question of whether carbon exists, whether it's stable enough to form the chemical bonds that make life possible. A physicist could also speculate on whether changes in the constants might make the observable universe, with stars of hydrogen burning by fusion, and all the derivative bodies of that fusion process (planets, asteroids, etc), untenable as well. Changing quantum mechanics changes everything, not just the rate at which uranium decomposes.
I'm starting to think he's fishing a little.
