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.
Note: key word in my sentence is "maybe." I read the wikipedia article about this and figured out what was wrong in my example. "Half-life" is the amount of time it takes for half of any amount of a substance to change to it's daughter element (If there are two moles of substance A and its half-life is 2000 years, it would take 2000 years for one mole of the sample to become substance B.) That was the one thing I found that I missed. The question, though, is "do YOU understand radiometric dating enough to understand what I am trying to say?"
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.
I found an unbiased site. Even though the title looks like it is biased, it isn't. It just goes through the whole story about the Java man thing. Here it is. What do you think? By posting this site, I am admitting that the pig tooth thing is all outdated now and evolutionists fixed their mistake. Also, I was searching around in there and found something that goes off topic, but is quite interesting...I hid the url somewhere in my paragraph so that we don't go too off topic. Only bother to look for it if you really want to know what it is.
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.
Yeah...I forgot which one it was. The Java man one also involved a tooth.... Anyways, that is the one I was speaking of. If you notice, the wikipedia pages all seem to be biased...
Also could you explain how creation wiki is unbiased. On the Java man page it has a link to this page.
That specific article was unbiased. The page you saw was one of the pages I though was interesting, but not the one I was speaking of in the previous post. What about that page, though, makes the article biased?
Also the creation wiki on atheism comapred to wiki on atheism. I thought the section on suicide was odd.
I agree with you on the suicide part...it was kinda randomly thrown out there.
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?
That's correct.
@ fourtytwo, care to introduce some creation 'science' to the argument instead of attempting to refute real scientific studies? I would be interested to see what you can come up with.
What about that page, though, makes the article biased?
The page it linked to was very creationism slanted and to me that suggests the original page would follow on similar lines especially when it is on a page that is on the subject of evolution. If there was an article on the best Nascar driver ever (randomly) which was supposed to beunbiased which then had a link to a website about Juan Pablo Montoya you would get the impression the author likes Montoya making it seem biased. (bad analogy) But the whole f creation wiki makes that page on Java man see suspicious.
nb the Big Bang article made me laugh in the way it was set out. 12 lines on evidense for. 12 sections on evidence against
fourtytwo, care to introduce some creation 'science' to the argument instead of attempting to refute real scientific studies? I would be interested to see what you can come up with.
What most Christians say when they are ask that question is, "Look around you! Look at nature and its wonders. Isn't it quite obvious that Someone designed all this?!" That is the best many people can do. Same for me...I'm not as brilliant as I might sound so I wouldn't be able to do any better. If I did try, I probably come up with proof just as ridiculous as the proof for evolution. I would recommend reading Josh McDowell's book Case for Christ. You could probably get it at a library...It isn't too bad of a book.
If I did try, I probably come up with proof just as ridiculous as the proof for evolution.
The Christian faith is utterly retarded! Yay! I can make baseless statements too!
What most Christians say when they are ask that question is, "Look around you! Look at nature and its wonders. Isn't it quite obvious that Someone designed all this?!"
That doesn't qualify as science, observer bias aside.
Alright...that is enough spam from the peanut gallery. Post something useful now :P If you want to post that you think the earth is x number of years old, post something that explains why you think that instead of just saying, "The earth is x years old!!!1" Or, you could just stay on topic.
Well...Theres not really any STRICT evidence that says Earth is 4.5 Billion (or whatever)years old,because everyday,they find new ,older stuff...If we had ANY human (or any other crature) that lived in the time when Earth was "born" we would have evidence that the world is older...REALLY older ,its just a fact that its 4.5 Billion years old..Who knows...Its (probably :P) maybe older ...Its a mistery...like Ghosts ,or Aliens...And...We maybe will never find out...who knows...
@chrisc even though I've said this before I totally disagree with you cause the flood made everything age faster so it looks older on the science tests. Also stalemites and stalagtites (not sure how to spell it) do njot take thousands of years to form casue there was a leak in a 50 year old basement. It had a bucket under the leak and a piller of stalemites and stalagtites came together.
Because Noah had two of every animal within walking distance of his backyard and the trees magically survived underwater and noah knew how to fit thousands of types of animals on a boat he built and all the animals reproduced with only two of them left and none of their later ancestors having disorders.
