I need to see logical scientific proof that the methods used to discover the age of the earth are imprecise. Atomic motion and decay happen at consistent rates, they therefore are very precise and reliable methods of dating. The meteor method is not inaccurate, the solar system formed simultaneously and thus meteors have approximately the same age as the Earth.
Yeah, seriously, don't blurt out your opinion without reasons people, that just shows you like to spam.
@ Necromancer: Or you could just go along with my reason. Carbon Dating is just as precise and shows that the earth is hundreds of million of years old, and not just thousands. In fact, use both! =)
Xzeno there is a reason why this is up here, because that other thread you just posted is on page 2-3, people stopped posting there. And posting links without anything else to say in the thread is considered spam, so don't try it.
But wouldn't trying to estimate the age of the earth be the same as trying to hit the bull's eye of a dartboard 1000 yards away? It's harder to guess as the distance between you and the target increase...
But wouldn't trying to estimate the age of the earth be the same as trying to hit the bull's eye of a dartboard 1000 yards away?
Not with carbon dating and studies of geological formations. If we know that certain types of rock develop a certain amount during a certain amount of time, we can tell how old a structure is by the different layers of rock. The Grand Canyon is a great example.
creation allll the way !!!!!! why ????? because think about it (just thought of it) if evolution is real why dont monkeys evolve now explain it if you can !!!
