In Christianity it is debated that the earth is around 4000 years old, however between scientists they believe the number to be closer around 4.3 billion years old
The Radiometric MASTERLINK. This may seem a tad long winded, but bear with it, it's good stuff if you can stand to read it.
Warning: Potentially offensive material.
I'm of the personal opinion that anyone who believes in literal biblical creationism is not only ignorant, but are deliberately ignoring evidence in order to maintain a 6,000 year old myth that has been disproven on every point. Furthermore, people touting creationism as 'science' are deliberately obstructing the advancement of science, and shouldn't be given creedance at all, and quite possibly psychiatric help, because creation as science is nothing but a juvenile refusal to think critically.
Phew.
I'm sorry for how harsh this comes off, but really creation science is hogwash, and hinders all sceintific advancement by forcing itself to be grouped with actual, empirical studies.
Furthermore, people touting creationism as 'science' are deliberately obstructing the advancement of science
In what way[s]?
anyone who believes in literal biblical creationism is not only ignorant, but are deliberately ignoring evidence in order to maintain a 6,000 year old myth that has been disproven on every point.
Where has it been disproved? If you say "radiometric dating" disproved it, you are wrong. Radiometric dating works by measuring the amount of one thing compared to the amount of the other in an object, then uses that to date it. For example:You find a rock containing one mole of substance A and two moles of substance B. It takes one million years for a mole of substance A to become substance B through radioactive decay. Looks like this rock is two million years old right? The problem is, what if the rock started out with a ton of substance B? Even if the Big Bang happened, while all the heavier substances were forming in stars (Pixie told me this is how they were formed), both substance A and substance B were probably created...not through radioactive decay.
fourtytwo: You can certainly argue that god (or whatever) placed these particular isotopes in a certain relation in order to trick scientists into thinking their theories are correct, but this is simply ad-hocery. The fact that scientists can predict certain levels within a given study and can show radiometric dating's limitations a priori seems to indicate that they know what they're doing. The problem with Christian apologists is that they don't offer their own scientific explanation of obvious empirical data... they merely want to deconstruct what has already been proven. But these attacks on the data are precisely what scientists themselves are trying to do! They're just doing it scientifically. There is no explanation for the apologists to show why we get the results that we do. They don't offer scientific data. All these people want to do is refute the data we already have... which is what science tries to do anyway! Anyone who argues against radiometric dating simply doesn't understand the process behind it. Period.
But these attacks on the data are precisely what scientists themselves are trying to do! They're just doing it scientifically.
Fail. Scientists go to extreme measures to try to prove that the theory is correct. If I go off topic a little here...some archaeologists found a tooth...guess what they used it for. They said the tooth was proof that a missing link existed for humans. they had some artists draw complete pictures of what this thing looked like based on a single tooth. Turns out that it was a pig's tooth they found. Anyways...that is just one example of the stuff scientists do to prove evolution and all the theories related to it. Pretty pathetic.
Anyone who argues against radiometric dating simply doesn't understand the process behind it. Period.
So maybe I don't understand it, but do YOU understand?
Fail. Scientists go to extreme measures to try to prove that the theory is correct. If I go off topic a little here...some archaeologists found a tooth...guess what they used it for. They said the tooth was proof that a missing link existed for humans. they had some artists draw complete pictures of what this thing looked like based on a single tooth. Turns out that it was a pig's tooth they found. Anyways...that is just one example of the stuff scientists do to prove evolution and all the theories related to it. Pretty pathetic.
And Christians don't go to extreme measures to try to ensure their 'theory' is correct? Torture, imprisonment, executions, burnings etc. Look back on the history of the various churches before you expound on the hypocrisy of scientists.
If I go a little off topic here...throughout Christendom churches have dug up bones and masqueraded them as holy relics to attract more donations. Pretty pathetic.
And Christians don't go to extreme measures to try to ensure their 'theory' is correct? Torture, imprisonment, executions, burnings etc. Look back on the history of the various churches before you expound on the hypocrisy of scientists.
If I go a little off topic here...throughout Christendom churches have dug up bones and masqueraded them as holy relics to attract more donations. Pretty pathetic.
I do realize that some people who say they are Christians do that. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. That was a quote from Jesus. I believe it applies to the "Christians" you were speaking of. They might say they are Christians, but they don't do God's will.
But some of those people were popes. How could they get to such a state of power, the head of the Roman Catholic church, if they didn't do Gods will.
You have to remember that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted Martin Luther and a lot of other Christians. They did that because they wanted everyone to follow their corrupted ways, and only their corrupted ways. They added lots of rules and other things to the religion that were never in the Bible so that they would get money and power. From my perspective, they were not true Christians. I'm NOT saying that all Catholic popes are like that. Some were actually good Christians.
Fail. Scientists go to extreme measures to try to prove that the theory is correct. If I go off topic a little here...some archaeologists found a tooth...guess what they used it for. They said the tooth was proof that a missing link existed for humans
I would love to read this story, can you provide a link? But the simple fact is that science cannot prove theories are correct. This is the basis upon which the scientific method is built. This point is not arguable, I'm afraid. Science hardly proves things - rather, they simply fail to disprove them. We can only prove things that are logically necessary, and scientific data is not in that category. I often here stories similar to the tooth example you gave from Christian apologists who don't actually know the facts behind the story and often misinterpret (sometimes purposefully) the events to demonstrate whatever asinine point they're trying to make. I'm not saying you're doing that, but a link to this story would certainly quell my doubts.
So maybe I don't understand it, but do YOU understand?
I'm not an archaeologist, but I have a fairly decent understanding of the process. But seriously, if you don't understand radiometric dating, then it's really silly for you to try to have this debate. The evidence for the age of the earth is overwhelming. It's as close to proof as the scientific community can possibly get. But I encourage you to do some reading, just try to find a non-biased site. There are plenty of biased sites on both sides of the fence.
Okay basically from what we know from our tests we have a fairly accurate date...
My question is how do they know exactly the time of the earths formation based on the age of rock samples. The Earth was formed due to masses coming together and forming even larger masses, and so on until a large ball we could call the earth was formed. But these masses from space could have been formed a long time before. and combined with others later. Radiometric dating determines the age of an object from the time the object was created, not from when it became more massive. Am I right?
Or maybe the Earth was created by a creator at that time, in that case it would be accurate...because how do we know that God has a different sense of time? A day to him could be ages. And in the bible they forgot to add, and on the next day, God was disappointing in his arts and crafts project and so he stepped on it....and that could happen next week lol.
