Science is Dogma...

[Robert A Whit]

Rev mentioned 6,000 years in one post. The oldest Sequoia is General Sherman, which is estimated at 2,300–2,700 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Sherman_%28tree%29 That's less than half the 6,000 years Rev mentioned. Hardly 'Much'.

And it's Kaibab, not Kaibob.

Thank you. I may call on you to do more research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

Still, at an estimated 5,062 years, it makes no sense that the Earth is merely 6,000 years.

5,062

Great Basin bristlecone pine Pinus longaeva

White Mountains,California, United States

Oldest known currently living tree. Tree cored by Edmund Schulman, age determined by Tom Harlan.[6]

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
Rev mentioned 6,000 years in one post. The oldest Sequoia is General Sherman, which is estimated at 2,300–2,700 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Sherman_%28tree%29 That's less than half the 6,000 years Rev mentioned. Hardly 'Much'.

And it's Kaibab, not Kaibob.

Thank you. I may call on you to do more research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

Still, at an estimated 5,062 years, it makes no sense that the Earth is merely 6,000 years.

5,062

Great Basin bristlecone pine Pinus longaeva

White Mountains,California, United States

Oldest known currently living tree. Tree cored by Edmund Schulman, age determined by Tom Harlan.[6]

You just claimed that it makes no sense that a tree could be 5,062 years old if the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You might want to review 1st grade math, dumb ass.

Interesting, and completely typical, how you gloss over your own completely incorrect comment about the Sequoias and move the goal posts to different trees.

Dumb ass.

[cadet]

All ya'll are crazy. The universe was created 5 minutes ago as it is, with all your memories of a fake past.

[aboutime]

All ya'll are crazy. The universe was created 5 minutes ago as it is, with all your memories of a fake past.

Put the bottle down. Or light up another cadet. Of course we're all crazy. Why else would we be here?

[Robert A Whit]

You just claimed that it makes no sense that a tree could be 5,062 years old if the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You might want to review 1st grade math, dumb ass.

Interesting, and completely typical, how you gloss over your own completely incorrect comment about the Sequoias and move the goal posts to different trees.

Dumb ass.

Seems your case is that it is 6000 years old. I plan to see you prove that.

Maybe you think Earth was cool when it was created. I don't believe that one bit.

Were you a careful reader, your hatred for me just might cool down. By the way, I believe where the oldest tree is was once ocean bottom. Factor that in please.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
You just claimed that it makes no sense that a tree could be 5,062 years old if the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You might want to review 1st grade math, dumb ass.

Interesting, and completely typical, how you gloss over your own completely incorrect comment about the Sequoias and move the goal posts to different trees.

Dumb ass.

Seems your case is that it is 6000 years old. I plan to see you prove that.

Maybe you think Earth was cool when it was created. I don't believe that one bit.

Were you a careful reader, your hatred for me just might cool down. By the way, I believe where the oldest tree is was once ocean bottom. Factor that in please.

Point 1... Please show me where I said that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

My 'case' is that you made a specific comment about a specific type of tree... I proved you wrong... and you immediately mosed the goalposts to different trees. EVERY time someone proves you wrong in a comment, you attempt to move the goalposts to avoid looking like a complete smacked ass.

And you fail every time.

[Robert A Whit]

Point 1... Please show me where I said that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

My 'case' is that you made a specific comment about a specific type of tree... I proved you wrong... and you immediately mosed the goalposts to different trees. EVERY time someone proves you wrong in a comment, you attempt to move the goalposts to avoid looking like a complete smacked ass.

And you fail every time.

Logic based on your remarks reference point 1.

Next, just what did I say wrong about the Sequoia again? Read the post again then come back when you finish your research. Stop being a m**her F*kr.

You seem to dog my posts praying you can do this you call smack ass. I come to exchange views with others and pick up new information.

Why is that?

For instance, when other posters speak what I say, you don't charge after them. You are kind to them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
Point 1... Please show me where I said that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

My 'case' is that you made a specific comment about a specific type of tree... I proved you wrong... and you immediately mosed the goalposts to different trees. EVERY time someone proves you wrong in a comment, you attempt to move the goalposts to avoid looking like a complete smacked ass.

And you fail every time.

Logic based on your remarks reference point 1.

Next, just what did I say wrong about the Sequoia again? Read the post again then come back when you finish your research. Stop being a m**her F*kr.

You seem to dog my posts praying you can do this you call smack ass. I come to exchange views with others and pick up new information.

Why is that?

For instance, when other posters speak what I say, you don't charge after them. You are kind to them.

Your logic fails you, as always. I references another posters comment. I made no comment of support, nor did I comment a lack of support. I offered no opinion on the matter. I simply pointed out your typical fallacy. Now, to avoid looking like a fool, you create a strawman argument that I believed the Earth is only 6,000 years old. FAIL.


The Sequoia ... your comment...

...Then we have the Sequoia Giants. Some standing have been on Earth much of your admitted age of earth...

Since the other poster mentioned 6,000 years, and I proved the oldest Sequoia is less than half that, your comment is incorrect. 'Much', is NOT less than half.

Again, you FAIL.

[Robert A Whit]

Stop moving goal posts.

Much does not mean over half. It means much. And you validated my statement it is much.

And I said it seems you believe in the 6000 years theory not that you do. Again, wake up.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Stop moving goal posts.

Much does not mean over half. It means much. And you validated my statement it is much.

And I said it seems you believe in the 6000 years theory not that you do. Again, wake up.

the depth of your stupidity is staggering.

[Robert A Whit]

the depth of your stupidity is staggering.

Actually as you look again into the mirror, you are self describing yourself.

I asked you for proof that AT was correct and you tried to steer me to his two lying posts.

I have long seen you as perhaps the most retarded of all posters especially socially. And your intellect is, just above average.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Actually as you look again into the mirror, you are self describing yourself.

I asked you for proof that AT was correct and you tried to steer me to his two lying posts.

I have long seen you as perhaps the most retarded of all posters especially socially. And your intellect is, just above average.

A... wrong thread dumb ass.

B... The two posts I 'tried to steer you to' in the Wiccan thread, were the ones where I asked him what exactly you did. You whined that no one was asking him for proof, and I had asked twice. You're so fucking stupid, you can't even keep up with the shit you start!

As for my intellect, I am quite certain it's superior to yours.

[logroller]

Ok,
so at this point you , gracely i might add, concede that the rate can change, it is NOT a fixed consent as once BELIEVED.


So you'll assume that it's small variation. As the CURRENT evidence suggest. OK, But i hope you'll note that objectively, to hang ALL of the marbles there is an assumption.
What we KNOW is from observation of decay rates that have been done for less than 90 years. To extrapolate it back for Millions of years is an assumption from what we've seen so far. It may be a good one, the best we can do at the moment. But it is just that in the final OBJECTIVE sense.
It's not hard observable science.
Science makes assumptions in various points all the time, no problem.
I just want to us to acknowledge them as we go along.
The mainstream folks often don't acknowledge they pile assumption on assumption to get where they end up.


I want to get back to the dating methods in a minute
.But i want to make an analogy here.
I tried to say this a previous post log and but you replied in a way that,.. i get what your saying.. but i don't think you Caught the way i was framing it.


this Analogy is not perfect and but I hope it makes my point.
If you ever watch the show Fringe you may have seen this.


Ok
3 investigators walked in on this scene. what COULD you conclude?


a hospital.
an man lies dead on the floor. he has grey hair wrinkled skin, long fingernails, sunken features.
the 1st investigator says this man probably is 65 to 80 years old, possible heart attack I'll need to look closer.


the 2nd investigator says wait a minute what's all of this fluid around him it's not blood, look its, it's Amniotic fluid. And what's this cord on his belly button, look there's a Placental on his leg, and the sign in the hall here says "maturity". He's found just outside the room with a dead mother who's DNA matches the placenta's.
I say he's really very very young.


1st investigator your a pitiful crazy religious nut case, your investigation is NOT science. It stupid, did you leave your brains at the doughnut shop? It's obvious that he's OLD and died of old age all the other stuff can be explained, like he walked to the maternity ward Jeez!! And none of that has ANY real bearing on our REAL peer reviewed investigation in to this death.


3rd investigator
why not look at all the evidence. Obviously we've got a unique case here. something we've never seen before and we are learning more about it the more we investigate.
How about we hold off any final scientific judgments until more evidence is in? Follow the trail where it lead rather than fit the facts.


the Analogy breaks at a couple of places but the main one for me is that all of the investigators KNOW what an old man looks like but we do not know what an OLD earth looks like or and OLD Universe.
We have NO former observational evidence to compare it to. we may as well be examining and Alien life form made of stone trying to determine if it's old or young. we have no good point of reference.


For science I like the 3rd investigators approach.
As I said I think the Young earth POV is JUST as Good as the Billions of years folks.
Neither one seem to be able to clear the deck of every piece of evidence, And the evidence is changing all the time, what precious little of it there is to try to determine definitively something in the distant past that cannot be observed.


It people want to build there life on the latest ideas from reli.. i mean science on our origins go ahead, just be ready to change up every 100 years or less.

that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

[Robert A Whit]

that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

I entirely agree with Logroller. There are many more ways to date than just radiocarbon dating.

But those who think God did not create the universe can't explain how it happened.

I believe he created it around 15.3 billion years ago.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nobody knows and nobody can prove how old the earth is . Nobody knows or can prove how old the universe is. I've always thought the immense time span given for earth's age was given to allow for the theory of Evolution. Eons of million year time spans are the magic elixir that allows for evolution. Instead of magic fairy dust they used incomprehensible lengths of time to allow for the changes in earth and its creatures. Since nobody knows or can prove earth's age I'm going with somewhere between 7 to 11 million years . I always liked those numbers and won a lot money with them......--Tyr