Dinosaurs not mentioned in the Bible? Wrong...

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Two points...

1) I'm not a biblical scholar, so I ask this as a genuine question... Is the bible mentioned in the bible?

2) As much as I admire the audacity of calling science 'pseudo-science'... Any statement to the effect of "The scientific and mathematical techniques for working out the age of the solar system (not just the Earth) are no better than the faith based methods" is easily falsified. Thankfully Chip_TheViking just did that admirably

 

[A_Son_of_God]

radiometric dating and other methods used to determine the age of the Earth are well-established and widely accepted scientific techniques. They involve rigorous experimentation, observation, and mathematical calculations based on physical and geological principles. These methods have been validated through numerous independent studies and are considered reliable ways to determine the age of various geological materials and events also Earths age is determined through various other proven scientific methods, including radiometric dating of rocks and minerals, studying the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, analyzing the formation of the Earth's crust and the geological processes that have taken place over millions of years, and studying the fossil record and evolutionary history of life on Earth. These methods provide strong evidence for the Earth being approximately 4.5 billion years old.
the article's you link to aren't studies, just opinions, unlike the ones published in reputable scientific journals, contributing to the body of knowledge in fields such as geology, paleontology, and nuclear physics.

Additionally, the consistent and corroborating data obtained from various dating techniques, such as radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating, and uranium-lead dating, further support the validity and reliability of these methods in determining the age of the Earth and its geological features.

EDITED:

Some examples of independent studies that have used radiometric dating and other methods to determine the age of geological materials include:

1. The study conducted by Claire Patterson in the 1950s and 1960s, which used lead isotopes to calculate the age of the Earth's oldest rocks and estimated the age of the Earth to be around 4.55 billion years.

2. The research by Brent Dalrymple and others in the 1960s and 1970s, which utilized potassium-argon dating to date volcanic rocks and minerals, providing additional evidence for the Earth's age.

3. The work of Paul Renne and his team in the 1990s and 2000s, who used argon-argon dating to determine the age of rocks from various geological formations, including the Chicxulub impact crater associated with the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.

4. The study by Stanley M. Awramik and others in the 1980s, which employed fossil evidence and radiometric dating to establish the age of stromatolite formations, providing insights into the early history of life on Earth.

These are just a few examples of the many independent studies that have contributed to our understanding of the age of the Earth and the reliability of radiometric dating techniques.

Yet it appears you didnt look at the articles, for one specifically addresses flaws in the potassium/argon technique. The information is new information, relatively speaking. Not from the '60s.

It is nice that you are aware of these techniques, but the response you made was relating to a specific comment regarding flaws in the established and widely accepted points of view, which weren't addressed, but written off without even being looked at.
I mean the phlogiston theory was also at one stage "established" and "widely accepted", as was the plum pudding model used by Dalton. But that does not explain the flaws, as the answer to the comment neither did.
So, frankly, how is a 20 year old rock dated at 300 000 years old? Maybe it is better to ask the hypothesis of how this happens. It must be addressed, or otherwise sticking to it has the same reasoning as a person choosing to stick to the phlogiston idea.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Yet it appears you didnt look at the articles, for one specifically addresses flaws in the potassium/argon technique. The information is new information, relatively speaking. Not from the '60s.

It is nice that you are aware of these techniques, but the response you made was relating to a specific comment regarding flaws in the established and widely accepted points of view, which weren't addressed, but written off without even being looked at.
I mean the phlogiston theory was also at one stage "established" and "widely accepted", as was the plum pudding model used by Dalton. But that does not explain the flaws, as the answer to the comment neither did.
So, frankly, how is a 20 year old rock dated at 300 000 years old? Maybe it is better to ask the hypothesis of how this happens. It must be addressed, or otherwise sticking to it has the same reasoning as a person choosing to stick to the phlogiston idea.

You also state that the articles arent studies, but opinions. No. They aren't opinions. The information is from studies. Just like your comment or my comment isnt a study, but based on information that is shared and discussed. Your comments didn't even provide a single article to show about how for instance K/Ar is done at all, yet you were quick to dismiss the information even before looking at it, because it wasn't an official study, but based on one, as most articles are.. I'm aware you looked at it, but that you used K/Ar as an example shows limited reading of it, and that you state specifically it isnt a study shows that you weren't interested in looking at the point of the comment.. The names and data were provided, so that if someone has access to an account where they can show this material, they can indeed look for the studies. The fact that it was specific to K/Ar appears to show you had no desire to address it, but choose to stick to an already held preconceived belief, demonstrating a faith in something, even though there are claims of flaws in it, yet having no desire to address true/false.
I'm not article dropping to be right. I love truth, and am well aware there are things I currently believe somehow or where that will change over time. The quest for truth will go on forever, as we really can't absolutely know many things. But - and I don't mean you - there are people who know nothing who will choose to believe a lie out of convenience, attacking anything that arises in the way of challenging it.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

even though the rock is only 20 years old, the isotopes within it can provide information about its formation and the geological processes that it has undergone over the past 300,000 years using uranium-lead dating or potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating is commonly used to date rocks that are billions of years old, while potassium-argon dating is typically used for rocks that are between a few thousand to a few million years old and while contamination or loss of parent or daughter isotopes can affect the accuracy of the age calculation. additionally, some rocks may have undergone metamorphism or other geological processes that can complicate the dating process they're still considered solid methods.

So - based on that, you agree that dating rock is wrong, because it in fact doesn't date the rock at all, but other, pre-existing circumstances...?

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

even though the rock is only 20 years old, the isotopes within it can provide information about its formation and the geological processes that it has undergone over the past 300,000 years using uranium-lead dating or potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating is commonly used to date rocks that are billions of years old, while potassium-argon dating is typically used for rocks that are between a few thousand to a few million years old and while contamination or loss of parent or daughter isotopes can affect the accuracy of the age calculation. additionally, some rocks may have undergone metamorphism or other geological processes that can complicate the dating process they're still considered solid methods.

It appears from the article that the only direct radiometric dating performed on diamonds - known to arise from the mantle - is K/Ar dating. It also shows it as flawed, as it seems to have dated them at over 9 billion years old, which would mean they are about twice as old as earth is claimed to be.
Just a side point, I am aware that the earth isnt 6000 years old.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

this isn't relevant, what you claimed is the methods we use are pseudo-scientific methods, when in fact there is empirical evidence that scientists use to determine the age of the Earth

1. Radiometric dating: Scientists use the decay rates of radioactive elements, such as carbon-14 and uranium-lead, to calculate the age of rocks and minerals on Earth. By analyzing the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes, scientists can determine how long ago the rock was formed.
2. Fossil record: The study of fossils can provide information on the age of rocks and the Earth itself. By examining the age of fossilized plants and animals, scientists can infer the age of the rock layers in which they are found.
3. Geological processes: Geologists study the processes that shape the Earth's surface, such as erosion, volcanism, and tectonic movements. By analyzing these processes and their effects on Earth's crust, scientists can estimate the age of certain rock formations and landforms.
4. Astronomical observations: Scientists can also determine the age of the Earth by studying the age of the solar system and the universe. By analyzing the age of meteorites and other celestial bodies, astronomers can estimate the age of Earth and the solar system.

Overall, these various lines of empirical evidence converge to support the widely accepted scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old that;s just the fact.

It is pseudo-scientific when all samples that contradict the desired outcome are removed, so that the accuracy can only be from samples that fit the story of the storyteller. That is pseudo-science.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

I can link to proven studies that show proof, but you're already aware of them I'm sure.

I'd still enjoy looking at the studies if you are happy to post them. I cant access all studies, so I don't know if I'm aware of what you have. Thanks too.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

because diamonds do not contain potassium, which is the element used in k/ar dating. therefore, the results of k/ar dating on diamonds may not accurately reflect their true age. additionally, diamonds can be easily contaminated with younger material, further complicating the dating process. as a result, k/ar dating of diamonds is not considered a reliable method for determining their age. other indirect dating methods, such as analysis of inclusions within diamonds or dating the rocks in which diamonds are found, may provide more accurate results.

Agreed, but only to the same degree they technically don't contain argon either. It IS the inclusions that are read, and although, yes, there are more than a single method used, this is so far the only one that has had a "flaw" highlighted, although there are others.
I wont be able to answer fully, as I am currently working away, and unable to spend time doing research, let alone use a computer. But each method has flaws, and the fact they are not highlighted, but used - even without discussing the flaws in the processes alone - requires a level of faith. In fact, a very high level of faith.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

5. "the age of the earth" by John Joly (1907) - Joly's work on the age of the Earth using the accumulation of sodium in the oceans.
6. "the age of the earth" by Arthur Holmes (1927) - Holmes' seminal work on radiometric dating methods and geologic time scales.
7. "the age of the earth" by Gerald J. Wasserburg (1987) - Wasserburg's paper on lead isotopes and their implications for the age of the Earth.
8. "dating the earth: the geological perspective" by Andrew G. Tindle (2000) - Tindle's review of various dating techniques used to determine the age of the Earth.

These research papers have contributed to the body of evidence supporting the estimated age of the Earth.
You can search for these papers in scientific journals or online databases like Google Scholar for more detailed information.

Thanks. Come Mid-March, I will both look for these, and also provide the names of the articles for you to look at regarding these flaws.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

it's been pleasant have a safe trip back look forward to more.

Cheers. I am happy to find a lover of science who is happy to discuss without the ridicule, but to provide a fair debate. Finally! Chat soon, and looking forward to more info and discussion regarding this.