Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
59 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo (6 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,106 Year: 4,218/6,534 Month: 432/900 Week: 138/150 Day: 8/23 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Make your own fossils in 10 years!
wj
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 20 (164287)
12-01-2004 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by zol
12-01-2004 5:21 AM


Re: Fossilosophy
quote:
As you youself indicate, they are constantly refining their measurements, perspectives. What was in their eyes 60 million five years ago may now have become 60 thousand. Yes, they are refining it.

Care to cite the evidence to suport this assertion of a dating being revised by a factor of 1,000? On the face of it it looks like creationist hyperbole or an outright lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 5:21 AM zol has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 17 of 20 (164297)
12-01-2004 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zol
12-01-2004 4:25 AM


Re: Fossilosophy
However, If you want to look back on scientific & geologic estimations at to the age of this planet we live on you will find that over the last 20 yrs or so that scientists have in general reduced their original estimates of the age of earth & all of the creatures held within its geological history.

100% incorrect. The "mainstream science" age of the Earth hasn't changed noticably for 51 years, since Houtermans1 published his calculation of 4.5 +/- 0.3 billion years, based on Pb-Pb dating, in 1953. During that time the "mainstream science" evaluation of the age of life has steadily increased; it's up around 3.5 billion years now, IIRC. The fact that a few psuedoscientists have claimed much smaller ages for the Earth and life, based solely on their interpretation of a particular religion's holy book, is not relevant to scientific estimates of the age of the Earth.

Have you noticed that the term "carbon dating" is not used anymore?

Again 100% incorrect. The Radiocarbon journal, dedicated solely to carbon dating, is alive and kicking. See also radiocarbon WEB-info, Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration & Paleoclimate Research Package.

---------------------------
1Houtermans, F. "Determination of the Age of the Earth from the Isotopic Composition of Meteoritic Lead." Nuovo Cimento 10, 1623-1633, 1953.

(edited to address the age of life)

This message has been edited by JonF, 12-01-2004 10:13 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 4:25 AM zol has taken no action

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 18 of 20 (164325)
12-01-2004 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zol
12-01-2004 4:25 AM


Support of Claims
As others have noted you have been wrong in pretty much everything you have posted here.

They have also pointed out to you that you are expected here to back up any claims you make. This is one of the forums guidelines you have agreed to.

This is a formal reminder of that requirement.

I will, again, be more than a bit patronizing. You are making statements that do no more than demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. This site is an opportunity to learn in a way that very unusual but only if you choose to take advantage of that.

One way to learn would be to ask more questions and make fewer unfounded assertions. Another would be to actually try to do the research to back up what you say. It might be a good idea to now do that before you post the statements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 4:25 AM zol has taken no action

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 19 of 20 (164329)
12-01-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zol
12-01-2004 4:25 AM


Re: Fossilosophy
As JonF has pointed out, scientists estimates of the earth's age have not changed in recent years. Perhaps you are thinking of the age of the universe? Estimates of which have shifted from 18-25 bya to 13.7 bya in the last twenty or so years. However, since the universe is most definetely not radiodated, it is not remotely relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 4:25 AM zol has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20745
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 20 (164336)
12-01-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zol
12-01-2004 4:25 AM


Re: Fossilosophy
Hi Zol,

I have pretty much the same reaction as everyone else. What are you reading that is giving you such a cockeyed impression of scientific thinking about geological ages?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 4:25 AM zol has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022