6,000 year old dinosaurs

[goodwithoutgod]

I stumbled across the website answersingenesis the other day, and under the dinosaur area, they said the earth is 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs were created on day 6, and they died out about 1,000 later because their lungs couldnt process air properly....and that all fossils are just 5,000+ years old...I know, I know, stick with me, they explained that clearly scientists and evolutionists are way off on their dating of fossils. wow, talk about living in a bubble of denial.

Lets look at some common dating methods and their error rate.

Samarium-neodymium dating method

This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable. That seems like a pretty small error %.

Potassium-argon dating method

This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).

Rubidium-strontium dating method

This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample. Again, a very small error %.

So when scientists say, hey we found a human fossil dated at 1.8 million years old...or the earth is 4.5 billion years old....even with the high end of the error ratios, it is still clearly older than 6,000 years......how can the creationists even say that with a straight face?

Thoughts? Does anyone truly believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

[alive]

Well according to the good book of riddles he made the universe around the same time... When knowing how fast light travels and the distance of where that lights coming from ...(Far away galaxies) using simple math would tell you billions...

Good o'le Kent Hovind logic says that light may not have always traveled at the same speed. Religious people are always trying to change the natural into supernatural in order to maintain their beliefs. It is the only way to maintain them without ignoring the problems altogether.

As far as speed I'm sure your not going to give it a plus or minus 6 thousand years? It would be more like millions or billions .......And for right now I can't really equate to light traveling slower?

[alive]

Well according to the good book of riddles he made the universe around the same time... When knowing how fast light travels and the distance of where that lights coming from ...(Far away galaxies) using simple math would tell you billions...

Good o'le Kent Hovind logic says that light may not have always traveled at the same speed. Religious people are always trying to change the natural into supernatural in order to maintain their beliefs. It is the only way to maintain them without ignoring the problems altogether.

I believe that Kent once kissed a frog and turned him into a handsome prince, but of course that may just be scuttle butt.

Damn... You forced me to Google him...

[1213]

Sense the Bible had nothing to do with this according to you, please tell us what you have observed that would lead you to the conclusion that the earth is closer to 6,000 then the billions proposed by science.

If you don't claim the Bible as your reason for this arbitrary date of 6000 years, where DID you pluck this number from? What IS your rationale?

I don’t know is 6000 just the right age. I think earth could be older, but not in my opinion over 1000 000 000 years.

I have seen that things erode or degenerate quite fast, therefore I think we couldn’t have this world as we see it, if it would be over 1000 000 000 years.

And sorry again for my double negative sentence in that last post, I hope it doesn’t bother too much.

[Danmark]

Sense the Bible had nothing to do with this according to you, please tell us what you have observed that would lead you to the conclusion that the earth is closer to 6,000 then the billions proposed by science.

If you don't claim the Bible as your reason for this arbitrary date of 6000 years, where DID you pluck this number from? What IS your rationale?

I don’t know is 6000 just the right age. I think earth could be older, but not in my opinion over 1000 000 000 years.

I have seen that things erode or degenerate quite fast, therefore I think we couldn’t have this world as we see it, if it would be over 1000 000 000 years.

And sorry again for my double negative sentence in that last post, I hope it doesn’t bother too much.

Whether you pick the number 6000 or 1billion, you give no reason for how you've come up with your numbers. What have you seen 'erode quite fast' that leads to 1 billion years as your outside number? Upon what evidence, specifically, do you base what appears to be a wild guess, and how did you do your calculations?

It is certainly an odd range, 6000 to 1,000,000,000. That's a ratio of 1:166,667.
Or perhaps my point becomes more obvious if I phrased it:

"I'd say it's 6000, plus [strike]or minus[/strike] 999,994,000 years"

[10CC]

Sense the Bible had nothing to do with this according to you, please tell us what you have observed that would lead you to the conclusion that the earth is closer to 6,000 then the billions proposed by science.

If you don't claim the Bible as your reason for this arbitrary date of 6000 years, where DID you pluck this number from? What IS your rationale?

I don’t know is 6000 just the right age. I think earth could be older, but not in my opinion over 1000 000 000 years.

I have seen that things erode or degenerate quite fast, therefore I think we couldn’t have this world as we see it, if it would be over 1000 000 000 years.

And sorry again for my double negative sentence in that last post, I hope it doesn’t bother too much.

Whether you pick the number 6000 or 1billion, you give no reason for how you've come up with your numbers. What have you seen 'erode quite fast' that leads to 1 billion years as your outside number? Upon what evidence, specifically, do you base what appears to be a wild guess, and how did you do your calculations?

It is certainly an odd range, 6000 to 1,000,000,000. That's a ratio of 1:166,667.
Or perhaps my point becomes more obvious if I phrased it:

"I'd say it's 6000, plus [strike]or minus[/strike] 999,994,000 years"

Dan he refuses to believe his god when his god says 6 days. I don't think you will convince him if his god can't.

[keithprosser3]

I believe that Kent once kissed a frog and turned him into a handsome prince

I can reveal (for no good reason) kissing the frog is the Disneyfied version. In the original tale the princess throws the frog violently against a wall.

[font=Georgia]Then she felt beside herself with rage, and picking him up, she
threw him with all her strength against the wall, crying, "Now will
you be quiet, you horrid frog!"

But as he fell, he ceased to be a frog, and became all at once a
Prince with beautiful kind eyes.[/font]

[1213]

Whether you pick the number 6000 or 1billion, you give no reason for how you've come up with your numbers.

For me 6000 is just more believable than over 1000 000 000. I don’t know what is the right age, but if earth would be over 1000 000 000 I think we should see more evidence about it.

What have you seen 'erode quite fast' that leads to 1 billion years as your outside number? Upon what evidence, specifically, do you base what appears to be a wild guess, and how did you do your calculations?

For example rock and stones and built environment.

Also I think genetic entropy is quite fast, if mutations happen in genome as Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation claims. I also have read that some study by J. F. Crow claims that human fitness is decreasing 1-2 % per generation. If that is true, I think it is not possible that human has existed as long as scientists claim.

Some people also claim that modern human has existed about 200 000 years. I don’t believe that people have existed so long without doing things that people have done in last 6000 years.

But these are only reasons why I don’t believe to really old earth. I can’t prove how long earth is and therefore you can believe freely to “old� earth. This was not meant to make people believe to 6000 years.

[Nickman]

For me 6000 is just more believable than over 1000 000 000. I don’t know what is the right age, but if earth would be over 1000 000 000 I think we should see more evidence about it.

Like the erosion that made the Grand Canyon? The layers of rock that form it?

Some people also claim that modern human has existed about 200 000 years. I don’t believe that people have existed so long without doing things that people have done in last 6000 years.

So simple animals could survive for 6000+ years but humans (who are smarter) cannot? We couldn't gather food? Or find shelter? You have some explaining to do.

But these are only reasons why I don’t believe to really old earth. I can’t prove how long earth is and therefore you can believe freely to “old� earth. This was not meant to make people believe to 6000 years.

You can prove how old the earth is, you just won't consider the evidence. You pass it off for your YEC ideas.

[we-live-now]

[Replying to goodwithoutgod]

I do believe that the dinosaurs were here when science says they were - millions of years ago. I don't believe they were part of the animals at the time of the Arc or they would have "snacked" on the other animals. All the animals that were around at the time were gathered for the arc IMHO except those in water. I don't find in scripture anything that says God destroyed the animals of the sea, so I assume they lived.

Also, the Bible is strangely quiet about why Satan was here in the garden when Adam and Eve were created. The site I pointed to believes that there were possibly several "human-like" races before humans that he may have been the leader of. I find this kind of thing interesting. That could explain the Neanderthal man and similar pre-human beings.

we-live-now

I thought the more sophisticated Christian response has always been to:

A. See these stories as myths that reinforce a 'real' God, and
B. That THE flood was local; i.e., it affected the world of the writers, of that culture, not the entire globe.

After all, these stories are from the day when there WAS no 'globe,' just a little bit of flat earth.

LOL! I guess I am not that sophisticated...