• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Earth, How old?

jooker

jooker

Apprentice
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Sythe Gold
0
Messages
800
Don't comment until watching this video or some of the others.

Supposedly 10 000 years old

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYky5NYEh7M

Don't decide until you watch this. Facts are there, some things are questionable.

Suggests everything has a creator, eg) look around you, everything you see has a creator. But if you look at the earth, and think about who the creator is, you would ultimately suggest "God" or something equal to that power.
The video is suggesting something against the Christian religion.

I suppose the universe would be the creator of earth?

Raises more questions than anything.

His human population formula, I think, doesn't account for death.

EDIT: Trying to decipher what I meant in a few areas, wrote this at an ungodly hour.
 
"Based on the assumptions of evolutionists the universe is 5 billion years old." Stopped watching there. If they do such a piss-poor job of straw-manning "evolutionists" then it is not worth the watch.

Also, it is creationism.
 
The earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

His population formula is utter nonsense. He assumes that the human population has been constantly growing, but we know this is simply not the case. Humans have been on the verge of extinction several times throughout our history, and our numbers have remained very small up to the end of the last ice age.

His assertion that the earth slows by one second each year is also equally nonsensical. If you take the true rate at which the earth slows and calculate the initial speed of rotation, you get what is approximately a 6 hour day 4.6 billions years ago. This is perfectly within reasonable limits.
 
Sythe Awards 2010 Winner
Sythe Awards 2012 Winner
Christmas 2015
Valentine's Day 2016
Easter 2016
MushyMuncher
Tier 1 Prizebox
Creationism (What is Believe) Says 10 000 Years, Adding up all the years in th Bible.

Evolutionists say that there are fossils older then this, however, there have been a few times (Looking up one now) Where this has been disproved.
 
PublicityFtF said:
"Based on the assumptions of evolutionists the universe is 5 billion years old." Stopped watching there. If they do such a piss-poor job of straw-manning "evolutionists" then it is not worth the watch.

Also, it is creationism.
Click to expand...

The universe is something like 13 and a half billion years old though?
 
10 000 years old? Aahahahahaha!
4,5 billion years (circa).
 
10,000 years is only slighty off try 4.7Billion years old we have fossils that date back to than, when the world as "Pangea"
 
Actually Pangea is way more recent stage than the creation of the earth itself.
Pangea is datable at around 200 millions years ago.
 
You said 10,000 years old? no... theres bones on earth that have been carbon dated to some 60 million years ago.

at 10,000 years the earth was still a bubbling mass of carbon and methane gas...
 
SwiftSeller said:
You said 10,000 years old? no... theres bones on earth that have been carbon dated to some 60 million years ago.

at 10,000 years the earth was still a bubbling mass of carbon and methane gas...
Click to expand...

Carbon dated to 60 million years old? The half-life of carbon-14 is far too short to date anything older then about 50,000 years old with any degree of accuracy. Things from 60 million years ago are dated using other radioactive isotopes with much greater half-lives.

To all of the deluded creationists: If the earth is truly only several thousand years old, then please provide an example of a rabbit that dates to the cretaceous, or a tyrannosaurus rex in the cenozoic. You'll never be able to find one, because they do not exist. The reason for their non-existence is because the earth is several billion years old, as opposed to the age suggested by sheep herders in the iron age.
 
To believe some fiction book over science (observation of the world around us) when it comes to things having to do with science is pretty stupid. It doesn't even matter how old the Earth is, time is just a perception. But creationists should just stop, they are trying to prove their false beliefs through the pervertion of the scientific method.

Earth was created through the laws of the universe by random chance. It is a fucking miracle that this planet and complex life even exists.
 
Creationists should just stick to their stupid ancient cults stories. Trying to prove any religious crap with science just makes them seem even more stupid than they already do with their stories, and they've never (and never will) come up with any proof for their stories, mainly because the proof doesn't exist.
 
Try and run said:
10,000 years old? I don't think so, we have several artifacts/fossils older than that.
Click to expand...

but these were dated with inefficient and unreliable dating methods, such as radioactive dating (carbon dating).

SwiftSeller said:
You said 10,000 years old? no... theres bones on earth that have been carbon dated to some 60 million years ago.

at 10,000 years the earth was still a bubbling mass of carbon and methane gas...
Click to expand...

again, you can look this up, carbon dating is unreliable and has flaws.
 
Noobkillerah said:
but these were dated with inefficient and unreliable dating methods, such as radioactive dating (carbon dating).



again, you can look this up, carbon dating is unreliable and has flaws.
Click to expand...

We have TONS of ways of dating the world:

Here's a list of some--yes, yes, yes, it's wikipedia, but I didn't have enough time to look for a better one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
 
Noobkillerah said:
but these were dated with inefficient and unreliable dating methods, such as radioactive dating (carbon dating).



again, you can look this up, carbon dating is unreliable and has flaws.
Click to expand...

Yes, carbon dating does have its flaws, just as any method of radiometric dating (or any method of dating, at all, for that matter) do. Claiming, however that they are unreliable is just complete nonsense and would only come from the mouth of an ignorant creationist. Carbon dating has been shown to be extremely reliable when used to date samples of tree rings. In addition, you don't even have the slightest clue how carbon dating works, or what its used on (as I said my in above post, carbon dating is NOT used to date things that are millions of years old, rather, it is used to date things which are known to be < 50,000 years old, as it has a very short half-life).

If you can explain why radiometric dating is incorrect, please, be my guest (I doubt you can do this, however, as it seems that you are blissfully unaware of what actual science is).
 
Omg carbon 14 can not be perfect, but we are talking of a difference of more than 4 millions years :D
EDIT: Yeah, meant billions. I already wrote it in the other post, it was clearly a misspell ^^
 
Foetus said:
Omg carbon 14 can not be perfect, but we are talking of a difference of more than 4 billion years :D
Click to expand...

Off by a factor of 1000. Fix'd.

Also, guys, c14 dating isn't used to date things of more then 50,000 years of age. Please get your facts straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top