Predestination, John Calvin

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The age of the Earth is a geological and/or astronomical area of endeavour. Mind you the various fields of science can be used to calibrate and test the other fields. That the age of the Earth is ample enough for Evolution from inanimate to cell to multicellullar life is apparent within the fossil record. That age of sediments can be approximately dated by matching the fossils within them with other such fossil sites around the world.

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

[gaelic cowboy]

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

Fossils are dated by carbon are they not, by definition it would be dead and therefore the carbon content would be datable, and I was always under the impression things like sediments were dated by things like lead or uranium decay??

Furnuculus is the man to ask

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fossils are dated by carbon are they not, by definition it would be dead and therefore the carbon content would be datable, and I was always under the impression things like sediments were dated by things like lead or uranium decay??

Furnuculus is the man to ask

Fossils are petrified, in most cases this means they can't be carbon dated because the original organic material has been replaced by some form of inorganic chemical. In any case, Carbon14 dating is quite unreliable because of the way it can fluctuate, so it is calibrated using dendrochonology, but it has now been discovered that trees can grow more than one ring a year, so that is also flawed and in any case dendro only goes back to about 3,000 BC, which is as far as history goes anyway. Lead and Uranium decay can also be contaminated if they are too closely associated with other minerals.

The point is, we don't know how old the Earth is, we just have evidence and ways of interpreting it. This is no different to Augustine, whose analysis of the available evidence (the historical record) was essentially correct, the Greeks were basically right and the Egyptions really quite wrong.

[gaelic cowboy]

Fossils are petrified, in most cases this means they can't be carbon dated because the original organic material has been replaced by some form of inorganic chemical. In any case, Carbon14 dating is quite unreliable because of the way it can fluctuate, so it is calibrated using dendrochonology, but it has now been discovered that trees can grow more than one ring a year, so that is also flawed and in any case dendro only goes back to about 3,000 BC, which is as far as history goes anyway. Lead and Uranium decay can also be contaminated if they are too closely associated with other minerals.

The point is, we don't know how old the Earth is, we just have evidence and ways of interpreting it. This is no different to Augustine, whose analysis of the available evidence (the historical record) was essentially correct, the Greeks were basically right and the Egyptions really quite wrong.

Apparently Carbon 14 would be no use for Dinosaurs cos it would be all gone by the time we dig it up but fine for later ones.

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently Carbon 14 would be no use for Dinosaurs cos it would be all gone by the time we dig it up but fine for later ones.

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil"

What that fails to mention though is contamination, irrc Lead207 can occur naturally, and there are ways that other radiometric tests can go squiffy, I think jet fumes can mess with Carbon14.

Anyway, my original point was fallability, nothing more.

[Papewaio]

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil"

Any authored by Wendy Deng or Hugh Hefner?

=][=

As for fallability this is where it comes apparent that Science and Religion are playing different ball games. Its like a big tough American Football team turn up to play against their opponents absolutely certain in their victory, only to find its a water polo team and the playing field is water. This leads the football team to find all their armour drowns them in a pool of possibilities.

Science is only science whilst it is falliable. If a theory cannot be tested or have a chance to be proven wrong it is no longer science. All science comes with small print in the form of an error bar.

So in their game once you go from 99% confidence to 100% confidence that you are right, you are moving from fact to opinion.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

To a degree but you have to keep in mind that sedimentary layers are conveniently quite large and made by relatively simply physical processes which means you can do a lot of comparison with other samples of the same or other layers. This doesn't give you a reliable dating technique, but then again the sedimentary layer is only corroborating evidence for a dating or a ball park figure from where to start.

Also if you want an accurate measure of time based on radioactive decay, you want to try Caesium isotopes. These have a very regular and predictable decay pattern which is why they are used as atomic clocks. Furthermore there are other radioactive isotopes, again it is the multitude of samples which provides accuracy and not some technique applied to any individual sample.

It is precisely that flaw which makes carbon dating unreliable: the lack of valid samples to compare against.