Originally posted by twhitehead
If there are fossils in the rock, then clearly that life is at least as old as the rock.
But radiometric dating is not only used for rock, it is used directly on life as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

"If there are fossils in the rock, then clearly that life is at least as old as the rock."

Not necessarily. Obviously the fossil came after the rock. Organisms, and other creatures could have gotten into diluvial matter or into silt and then the rock was formed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its you that is dancing with words, not I. You are not using the words with their standard English meanings.
But what is worse, is you inconsistent in your usage suggesting intent to deceive.

Then we really have a problem because I could say the same thing about you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have studied this.

By that you mean "watched a youtube video by some anonymous person".

Originally posted by FMF
Start a thread on the Science Forum if you want to find out about how long humans have existed.

No thanks. I know how long humans have been here.

But no one else here seems to know for sure. Evolution is a theoretical guessing game apparently, and always changing with each new brain hemorrhage theory some atheist scientist comes up with.

Originally posted by josephw
Not necessarily. Obviously the fossil came after the rock. Organisms, and other creatures could have gotten into diluvial matter or into silt and then the rock was formed.

So, the rock forms after the fossil. You just contradicted yourself. Or are you saying some of the components of the rock formed before the fossil? If so, then I agree.

Originally posted by josephw
Then we really have a problem because I could say the same thing about you.

Say it all you like, it will remain a fact that it is you dancing with words and not I.

Originally posted by josephw
But no one else here seems to know for sure. Evolution is a theoretical guessing game apparently, and always changing with each new brain hemorrhage theory some atheist scientist comes up with.

Yes, science progresses with time. I notice however that you don't complain when the result is a better internet or cellphone.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you think you know God is infinitely just, but this particular issue seems to contradict that, then the question is 'which is right'? So I see no reason not to question Him. Why should you pick and choose what you want to about God?

[b].... is it no wonder that so many reject God?
I actually know of nobody that has rejected God. Do you? Or do y ...[text shortened]... st the way it is.[/b]
So, as in the OP, you really have no answer to the thread title question.[/b]

Then just keep asking questions, and never getting any answers.

You have no real reason to say that God doesn't exist or that God hasn't spoken to whom He will, and when and how. You merely reject what truth you hear simply because you just don't want to believe it, not because you know better.

Originally posted by josephw
No thanks. I know how long humans have been here.

But no one else here seems to know for sure. Evolution is a theoretical guessing game apparently, and always changing with each new brain hemorrhage theory some atheist scientist comes up with.

So what about all the Christian biologists coming up with good work about evolution? Are they part of the vast conspiracy also?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So what about all the Christian biologists coming up with good work about evolution? Are they part of the vast conspiracy also?

What vast conspiracy?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, science progresses with time. I notice however that you don't complain when the result is a better internet or cellphone.

Applied science. Good stuff. But I can't use theory.

What I find so disturbing is that science can develop a machine that can tell how old the stuff of the universe is, saying the universe is 4.5 billion years old.

That is seriously obtuse. The universe has been around for God only knows how long, and man develops a machine within the last hundred years that can tell how old it is?

When will man stop fooling himself?

Originally posted by josephw
Applied science. Good stuff. But I can't use theory.

What I find so disturbing is that science can develop a machine that can tell how old the stuff of the universe is, saying the universe is 4.5 billion years old.

That is seriously obtuse. The universe has been around for God only knows how long, and man develops a machine within the last hundred years that can tell how old it is?

When will man stop fooling himself?

When zircon solidifies lead is forced out of the crystal structure. Uranium is not. After crystallization lead builds up in the lattice as the uranium decays. Because there are two naturally occurring isotopes of uranium which decay into different isotopes of lead the time measurements are particularly precise. The oldest rocks come out of the order of 4.2 billion years. This is where the estimate for the age of the earth comes from.

The universe is considerably older, it is believed to be 13.8 billion years since the big bang. This is based on looking at the redshifts in the spectra of distant galaxy clusters and working out how fast they are receding. The distances are inferred using standard candles. From this they can estimate the age of the universe.

Originally posted by DeepThought
When zircon solidifies lead is forced out of the crystal structure. Uranium is not. After crystallization lead builds up in the lattice as the uranium decays. Because there are two naturally occurring isotopes of uranium which decay into different isotopes of lead the time measurements are particularly precise. The oldest rocks come out of the order ...[text shortened]... ances are inferred using standard candles. From this they can estimate the age of the universe.

Scientific sophistry.

"Because there are two naturally occurring isotopes of uranium which decay into different isotopes of lead the time measurements are particularly precise."

What? Where did you cut and paste that from?

Besides, I already said I believed the earth is old.

But life on this planet is young.

Originally posted by josephw
Scientific sophistry.

[b]"Because there are two naturally occurring isotopes of uranium which decay into different isotopes of lead the time measurements are particularly precise."

What? Where did you cut and paste that from?

Besides, I already said I believed the earth is old.

But life on this planet is young.[/b]

I didn't cut and paste from anywhere. Those were my own words. Basically you get two measures of the age of the rock, so the measurements are more precise.

Evidence of microbial mats has been found in sandstone dated to around 3.5 billion years ago:
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/ast.2013.1030

Originally posted by DeepThought
I didn't cut and paste from anywhere. Those were my own words. Basically you get two measures of the age of the rock, so the measurements are more precise.

Evidence of microbial mats has been found in sandstone dated to around 3.5 billion years ago:
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/ast.2013.1030

Again, I don't have a problem with an old earth.

But the life on it is young.