Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 3:20:48 GMT
So you’re saying it’s impossible for science to discover a more reliable and accurate technique than radiometric dating to estimate the age of the earth in the near future? No, that's kind of the OPPOSITE of what he's saying. Error bars shrinking means that the evidence is more reliable and accurate. In any case, where are you going with this? I'll hazard a guess that it's the old "scientists once thought the right number was X, and then they thought it was Y, and now they think it is Z. This means that the answers science comes up with can never be trusted, and the real answer could be absolutely anything." I hope it isn't that, because that is an utterly dimwitted argument which only a total moron could possibly believe. I mean, imagine somebody saying "Well you guessed the height of that building at 200 feet, but then you measured the angles and used a bit of triangulation and said it was 220 feet, and then you used a laser measuring device and said it was 210 feet. This obviously means that your answers can't really be trusted, and it's entirely possible that tomorrow a new method could show that the building is a quarter of an inch tall." |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 29, 2019 3:31:57 GMT
No, that's kind of the OPPOSITE of what he's saying. Error bars shrinking means that the evidence is more reliable and accurate. In any case, where are you going with this? I'll hazard a guess that it's the old "scientists once thought the right number was X, and then they thought it was Y, and now they think it is Z. This means that the answers science comes up with can never be trusted, and the real answer could be absolutely anything."I hope it isn't that, because that is an utterly dimwitted argument which only a total moron could possibly believe. I mean, imagine somebody saying "Well you guessed the height of that building at 200 feet, but then you measured the angles and used a bit of triangulation and said it was 220 feet, and then you used a laser measuring device and said it was 210 feet. This obviously means that your answers can't really be trusted, and it's entirely possible that tomorrow a new method could show that the building is a quarter of an inch tall." ...you mean like Heeeeey says? |
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Jan 29, 2019 3:51:10 GMT
There's also the Schrodinger's God theory, where quantum mechanics allows for the simultaneous existence and non-existence of God. Similar to another statement I have made in this forum. Specifically that because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the universe must simultaneously exist and not exist. Not that I could prove it. Are you referring to this? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 29, 2019 4:44:33 GMT
No, that's kind of the OPPOSITE of what he's saying. Error bars shrinking means that the evidence is more reliable and accurate. In any case, where are you going with this? I'll hazard a guess that it's the old "scientists once thought the right number was X, and then they thought it was Y, and now they think it is Z. This means that the answers science comes up with can never be trusted, and the real answer could be absolutely anything." I hope it isn't that, because that is an utterly dimwitted argument which only a total moron could possibly believe. Yeah, I'm virtually sure this is where he is going, but I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Every now and again they surprise me (although it's rare). In any case, I don't like to put words in people's mouths so I like to question them so I can get it straight from the horse's mouth before I address it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2019 9:10:49 GMT
You know what I mean. Do you think it’s possible that in the next 100 years the estimate could go from 4.5billion to say 5billion or even decrease with the discovery of new additional information? It's theoretically possible, but it's highly unlikely. The technology/methods used today has obviously improved over the years since the 1800s when scientists though the Earth was only 100 million years old. As the methods improved and we got more accurate numbers, we saw "diminishing returns" in accuracy (by the 1911 we believe the earth to be 1 billion years old, by 1941 they moved it to 3 billion). Eventually perhaps we could find more accurate measurements of the earth, but it's probably going to be maybe something like 4.6 or 4.7 billion years, but not some ridiculously different number like 6000 years or anything. You and Rizdek say it’s possible. Graham says it isn’t. Make up your minds. If it indeed is possible and the date can jump from even 4.5billion to 4.6 or 4.7 then currently science doesn’t know for sure the age of the earth. Case rested. |
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Jan 29, 2019 9:26:14 GMT
Similar to another statement I have made in this forum. Specifically that because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the universe must simultaneously exist and not exist. Not that I could prove it. Are you referring to this? No, not what I meant. In fact, my comment was not very serious. But who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jan 29, 2019 9:59:32 GMT
If it indeed is possible and the date can jump from even 4.5billion to 4.6 or 4.7 then currently science doesn’t know for sure the age of the earth. Take an empty cup, go to your kitchen sink, and fill it half full of water. Now, do you know exactly how much water is in the cup -- down to the molecule? Of course not. But you do know it's more than a tablespoon and less than a gallon and you would be an idiot to consider those as real possibilities. Same thing with the age of the earth. We don't know the exact age, but we do know the approximate age, and we can confidently eliminate ages that differ from it significantly -- the more they differ, the more confidently we can eliminate them. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 29, 2019 15:16:22 GMT
It's theoretically possible, but it's highly unlikely. The technology/methods used today has obviously improved over the years since the 1800s when scientists though the Earth was only 100 million years old. As the methods improved and we got more accurate numbers, we saw "diminishing returns" in accuracy (by the 1911 we believe the earth to be 1 billion years old, by 1941 they moved it to 3 billion). Eventually perhaps we could find more accurate measurements of the earth, but it's probably going to be maybe something like 4.6 or 4.7 billion years, but not some ridiculously different number like 6000 years or anything. You and Rizdek say it’s possible. Graham says it isn’t. Make up your minds. If it indeed is possible and the date can jump from even 4.5billion to 4.6 or 4.7 then currently science doesn’t know for sure the age of the earth. Case rested. You're playing riddiculous semantics and you know it. It doesnt "know" exactly how old the Earth is, but it gives a very close approximation. You might as well be complaining science doesn't know down to the very last year how old the Earth is so we should just write it off, that's the level of riddiculousness you're presenting. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 29, 2019 16:12:41 GMT
No, I really don't. No, that is not possible. The only thing that is going to happen in the next 100 years is that the error bars are probably going to shrink. So you’re saying it’s impossible for science to discover a more reliable and accurate technique than radiometric dating to estimate the age of the earth in the near future? The age of the Earth being in the billions of years is quite consistent with the age of galaxies we observe from Earth, known to be millions to billions of light-years away. The nearest one, Andromeda is a little over 2 million light years away and we can see billions of galaxies that are billions of light-years away. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2019 16:31:59 GMT
You and Rizdek say it’s possible. Graham says it isn’t. Make up your minds. If it indeed is possible and the date can jump from even 4.5billion to 4.6 or 4.7 then currently science doesn’t know for sure the age of the earth. Case rested. You're playing riddiculous semantics and you know it. It doesnt "know" exactly how old the Earth is, but it gives a very close approximation. You might as well be complaining science doesn't know down to the very last year how old the Earth is so we should just write it off, that's the level of riddiculousness you're presenting. So it can be off by millions of years but still a “very close approximation”. Okay, if you insist. LOL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 16:42:46 GMT
You're playing riddiculous semantics and you know it. It doesnt "know" exactly how old the Earth is, but it gives a very close approximation. You might as well be complaining science doesn't know down to the very last year how old the Earth is so we should just write it off, that's the level of riddiculousness you're presenting. So it can be off by millions of years but still a “very close approximation”. Okay, if you insist. LOL It's like you literally enjoy evidencing that you're willfully dumb as a sack of squashed assholes... bona fide poster child for the hazards of religious indoctrination. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 29, 2019 16:46:25 GMT
You're playing riddiculous semantics and you know it. It doesnt "know" exactly how old the Earth is, but it gives a very close approximation. You might as well be complaining science doesn't know down to the very last year how old the Earth is so we should just write it off, that's the level of riddiculousness you're presenting. So it can be off by millions of years but still a “very close approximation”. Okay, if you insist. LOL Considering how old the Earth is, yes a few million years is a very close approximation. Compaing a million to a billion is kinda like comparing a minute to an hour. Do you seriously not understand the concept of relativity? |
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jan 29, 2019 16:49:53 GMT
You're playing riddiculous semantics and you know it. It doesnt "know" exactly how old the Earth is, but it gives a very close approximation. You might as well be complaining science doesn't know down to the very last year how old the Earth is so we should just write it off, that's the level of riddiculousness you're presenting. So it can be off by millions of years but still a “very close approximation”. Okay, if you insist. LOL 10 million years is 0.2% of 4.5 billion. If your figure is only off by 0.2%, then yes, it's a very close approximation. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2019 16:50:14 GMT
So it can be off by millions of years but still a “very close approximation”. Okay, if you insist. LOL Considering how old the Earth, yes a few million years is a very close approximation. Compaing a million to a billion is kinda like comparing a minute to an hour. Do you seriously not understand the concept of relativity? It can jump from 4.5 to 5billion in the next 100 years, easily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 16:50:46 GMT
You're playing riddiculous semantics and you know it. It doesnt "know" exactly how old the Earth is, but it gives a very close approximation. You might as well be complaining science doesn't know down to the very last year how old the Earth is so we should just write it off, that's the level of riddiculousness you're presenting. So it can be off by millions of years but still a “very close approximation”. Okay, if you insist. LOL Being five million years off in an age of 4,500 million is within 0.6%. Yes, that counts as a very close approximation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 16:51:37 GMT
Considering how old the Earth, yes a few million years is a very close approximation. Compaing a million to a billion is kinda like comparing a minute to an hour. Do you seriously not understand the concept of relativity? It can jump from 4.5 to 5billion in the next 100 years, easily. Nope, it could not. But I guess we should accept your word for it, what with your scientific expertise and all. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 29, 2019 16:51:48 GMT
Considering how old the Earth, yes a few million years is a very close approximation. Compaing a million to a billion is kinda like comparing a minute to an hour. Do you seriously not understand the concept of relativity? It can jump from 4.5 to 5billion in the next 100 years, easily. What exactly are you basing that on? |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2019 16:56:01 GMT
It can jump from 4.5 to 5billion in the next 100 years, easily. What exactly are you basing that on? The potential discovery of new information and superior dating techniques and methods. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 29, 2019 16:59:40 GMT
What exactly are you basing that on? The potential discovery of new information and superior dating techniques and methods. But how did you specifically come up with "it could easily change to 5 billion". What exact parameters are you using? |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2019 17:13:38 GMT
The potential discovery of new information and superior dating techniques and methods. But how did you specifically come up with "it could easily change to 5 billion". What exact parameters are you using? What does that matter? the point is the date could potentially jump significantly. |
|
