This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"Look we found a tablet dated to the time of Jesus!"

#1arian487Posted 6/30/2011 1:09:52 PM
Nothing pisses me off more then this when it comes out of the mouth of someone who doesn't believe the Earth is billions of years old. I always ask them why they accept dating techniques when it comes to finding tablets and stuff that supports them but disregard it in all other cases. I always get answers like: "But dating them to billions of years inaccurate, this is only 2000!"
---
x - (x^3 / 3!) + (x^5 / 5!) - (x^7 / 7!) + ... = sinx
4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) = PI
#2bsballa09Posted 6/30/2011 1:11:04 PM
If you're referring to my topic, I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in YEC.
---
Some people were surprised Duke Nukem Forever makes disgusting and perverse jokes and they use that as a reason why it's a bad game. *sigh* Kids...
#3OrangeWizardPosted 6/30/2011 1:15:09 PM
I'm pretty sure there are different dating methods involved in dating something 2K years and 2000K years
---
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops
#4fudrickPosted 6/30/2011 1:28:14 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
I'm pretty sure there are different dating methods involved in dating something 2K years and 2000K years

The point is they don't understand either dating technique, but since they see one as supporting their beliefs they believe that, and since they see the other as refuting their beliefs they refuse to accept it.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#5the_hedonistPosted 6/30/2011 1:41:24 PM
I'm not outright defending them - you have to reject mounds of scientific evidence if you want to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. But to be fair, dating techniques do get less reliable the further back you go.
---
Everything that doesn't have to do with elephants is irrelephant.
~The Christian Hedonist~
#6ArwenTinuvielPosted 6/30/2011 1:49:14 PM
It really depend on the dating method that you use. No one in their right mind would use Carbon dating to date things millions of years old, or use Potassium-Argon dating for things within the last hundred thousand years.

And while the accuracy of the dating methods aren't spot on, but they're usually correct within acceptable errors. I mean, 20 million years might sound like alot, but when you're considering things like the origin of Earth up to 4.6 billions years ago, 20 million years is less than a 0.5% deviation.
---
http://arwentinuviel.deviantart.com/
#7kozlo100Posted 6/30/2011 1:54:04 PM(edited)
But to be fair, dating techniques do get less reliable the further back you go.

Sure, but it's also true that the further back you go, the larger the errors you can tolerate become. To push it right to the oldest thing, an error of 10 million years in dating the Earth itself is not statistically significant, and errors of a few hundred thousand in dating things like dinosaur bones and whatnot doesn't prevent us from knowing what we want to know about them.

edit: Ah, looks like Arwen beat me to it.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#8OrangeWizardPosted 6/30/2011 2:06:21 PM
fudrick posted...
OrangeWizard posted...

The point is they don't understand either dating technique,


How do you know?
---
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops
#9Imperator420Posted 6/30/2011 2:24:42 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
fudrick posted...
OrangeWizard posted...

The point is they don't understand either dating technique,

How do you know?


The people who understand either or both dating techniques have studied them, are familiar with their methodology, and have learned that they both rely on sound principles. Most of them have presumably put their knowledge to professional use are and employing the aforementioned techniques for scientific progress and the betterment of human knowledge as we speak.

One knows that a YEC is not a geologist for the same reason one knows that a heliocentrist is not an astronomer, or that a person who believes that spirits cause diseases is not a pharmacist.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#10arian487(Topic Creator)Posted 6/30/2011 10:01:27 PM
The techniques almost always involve half life of various substances. In this sense, the methods are all the same, but some substances are used to date very large years while others are used to date smaller ones. In fact, hedonist, you said they get less reliable the further you go but on the contrary, certain techniques are not very reliable for smaller timeframes and become more reliable when dating millions and billions of years.

To me, to accept one dating technique and then to reject another (which is very likely reliant on the same chemical principles) is incredibly stupid and it makes me angry.
---
x - (x^3 / 3!) + (x^5 / 5!) - (x^7 / 7!) + ... = sinx
4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) = PI