[dalmations202]

Finally some good debate.

Quick scientific experiment.

Take an aquarium -- put a water hose in the bottom but don't turn on. then fill with 1" layer of dirt and bone, etc. then fill with another layer of different colored dirt, bones, rock, etc. Then fill with another and another till tank half full. Then bury a few items just somewhere in the depth of the layers.

then fill with 4" of water above the dirt.

then turn on the water hose that was below the layers of dirt. And shake the aquarium violently.

then drain the water, and put a hair drier on one side blowing on one spot only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do all the layers of dirt stay in the same layers?
Do all the bones and rocks end up in the same place? In the same layer they were originally in?
When the hair dryer runs long enough, does the sand cause a hole in one spot while building a layer in a different part of the aquarium?
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
This scientific experiment could explain how some things settle when water is added and that external forces can change where things are in comparison to layers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This does not prove that a flood happened on the earth, but does prove that if there was a flood or event like it at one time, it could have caused the layers to not be a good choice for how we determine age.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, without using any layers of the ground, please give me the scientific proof of how old the earth is.

I always thought it was radiocarbon dating. But--
Raw radiocarbon ages (i.e., those not calibrated) are usually reported in "years Before Present" (BP). This is the number of radiocarbon years before 1950, based on a nominal (an assumed constant) level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere equal to the 1950 level. These raw dates are also based on a slightly-off historic value for the radiocarbon half-life. Such value is used for consistency with earlier published dates.

So if the atmosphere was always the same, and if I assume that there is a constant level of decay, and IF and IF and IF -- then we might be right within a +- of XXX years.

Or from a more standard view....
The number of decays per time is proportional to the current number of radioactive atoms. This is expressed by the following differential equation, where N is the number of radioactive atoms and λ is a positive number called the decay constant:

As the solution to this equation, the number of radioactive atoms N can be written as a function of time:
,
which describes an exponential decay over a timespan t with an initial condition of N0 radioactive atoms at t = 0. Canonically, t is 0 when the decay started. In this case, N0 is the initial number of 14C atoms when the decay started.
For radiocarbon dating a once living organism, the initial ratio of 14C atoms to the sum of all other carbon atoms at the point of the organism's death and hence the point when the decay started, is approximately the ratio in the atmosphere.
Two characteristic times can be defined:
mean- or average-life: mean or average time each radiocarbon atom spends in a given sample until it decays.
half-life: time lapsed for half the number of radiocarbon atoms in a given sample, to decay,
It can be shown that:
= = radiocarbon mean- or average-life = 8033 years (Libby value)
= = radiocarbon half-life = 5568 years (Libby value)

***So science thinks it can date back to 8033 years via the living organisms, but dates animals as being from this geologic era that is millions of years old.

**** Unless someone has some information I haven't seen, then the only other way they have to date any fossils is to date them by the layer of geologic rock they are found in. The experiment above shows that the layers may or may not have been anywhere near close.

Please show me where I can get the "scientific" proof of the age of the earth. Show me where we have proof that the earth is older than thousands of years. Assumptions of decay constants which may or may not be true, assumptions of exact atmosphere, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

This means that you "believe" the assumptions made by "other" men.

Religion is close to the same thing -- people believe what is told to them by others. Or they have something happen in their lives that in turn proves to them that there is a higher power.

Science is a religion to an extent. You are asked to believe based upon massive uncertainties. You can't explain, so you state this is your best guess (hypothesis). Some are easy to prove, others prove much more difficult. Example -- how can you prove that the speed of light is a constant? (even if it is a constant here on earth - is it in outer space, or outside our galaxy, or etc)

Since I am an irrational guy -- please send me the links to study which will show me where I am wrong here. I got my masters degree in computers 20 years ago after my military time, and Cobol was the primary language at the time. Just pure logic flow. I don't think I am stupid so please send me links that someone who has had college geology and biology classes should be able to comprehend. I mean not too scientific nerdy, but not jr high either.

Also -- when did science all get to be carefully tested evidence? Some science yes -- all science, not even close.

----------------------------------------------------------
And one more note SeanL: Not all creationist or religious people believe things just because Mommy and Daddy said they were so. Many sure, but all..... not so much. A few I know have studied much harder and longer than you have been alive only to conclude that they just don't really have the answers ( but their own views make the most sense to them).

--------------------------------------------

This is an enjoyable debate. Looking forward to Dirk getting back so I can start debating basketball again instead of politics, religion, science, etc.