40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[Lonestar_logic]

New Gallup poll.
Americans sure are dubasses, ignorant and robots.

The earth may well be millions of years old. However humankind isn't. And when you call folks names, be sure to use spell check.

 

[blastoff]

Not surprising at all.

If you want to see a disturbing slice of Americana, tune in Parking Wars some time on A&E (I think?).

 

[Truthmatters]

Mankind is proveably millions of year old

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Mankind is proveably millions of year old

Then prove it.

 

[Truthmatters]

STONE AGE MAN


Stone tools: from 2.5 million years ago

The human discovery that round nodules of flint can be split and chipped to form a sharp edge is extremely ancient. Tools made in this way have been found in Africa from about 2.5 million years ago. Gradually, over the millennia, in an extremely slow version of an industrial revolution, new and improved techniques are developed for striking off slivers of stone.

Variations in the flints found with fossil remains (differing both in the method by which flakes are chipped from the core, and in the range of shapes created) are used by anthropologists as one way of assigning human skeletal remains to specific groups or Divisions of the Stone Age.

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab10#ixzz18lAHnUpv

 

[Truthmatters]

Done

 

[cak720]

Well thought out response. You're one of those who relies on personal insults and vulgarity to smokescreen the fact that you have little of substance to offer. Am I right? If I am right, please respond with a torrent of profanity-laced insults and generalizations.

 

[Truthmatters]

Science is dependable and demonstrateable.

Religion is based on faith.


Facts should NOT be ignored for faiths gain.

 

[Truthmatters]

Note facts make them run away

 

[Vanquish]

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

Arrogance is another accusation.

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ

 

[Sallow]

Mankind is proveably millions of year old

Then prove it.

I take it you're with the 10k crowd..

 

[Full-Auto]

Note facts make them run away

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope, religion has fought science all its exsistance

 

[Vanquish]

Note facts make them run away

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

Sort of but not really.

Science = theory that you can live to demonstrate over and over and over
Religion = you only get to find out if you're right after you die (perhaps)

 

[Truthmatters]

Religion is myth.

You can believe it if you choose to.

Sceince makes things possible.

You can pretend your frig works on faith but it actually works on sceince

 

[Lonestar_logic]

STONE AGE MAN

In order to know how old something is you need to have a known sample to make a comparison. Every dating system has it's flaws, therefore cannot be considered accurate.


When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[1] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[2] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[3] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[4] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.


1.G. WoldeGabriel et al., “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature, 1994, 371:330-333.

2.M. Lubenow, “The Pigs Took It All,” Creation, 1995, 17(3):36-38.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 247-266.

3.A.R. Williams, “Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility,” CEN Technical Journal, 1992, 6(1):2-5.

4.Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.

 

[uscitizen]

Americans are stupit.
51% of americans elected George Bush in 2004.
And one on the right could say the same about Obama being elected.

Polls like this one just prove the fact that Mericans are just not too bright, on average.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Mankind is proveably millions of year old

Then prove it.

I take it you're with the 10k crowd..

I take it you're an idiot.

 

[cak720]

I think the poll actually said 45%, but the real number is this. In the same poll, along with those 45% who think the world was created in the last 10,000 years are also 38% who say that evolution is a process that was started and guided by God. Leaving 13% of the remaining people to come to this board and insist that the whole world, except them, are retards. 13%...

 

[Truthmatters]

STONE AGE MAN

In order to know how old something is you need to have a known sample to make a comparison. Every dating system has it's flaws, therefore cannot be considered accurate.


When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[1] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[2] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[3] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[4] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.


1.G. WoldeGabriel et al., “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature, 1994, 371:330-333.

2.M. Lubenow, “The Pigs Took It All,” Creation, 1995, 17(3):36-38.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 247-266.

3.A.R. Williams, “Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility,” CEN Technical Journal, 1992, 6(1):2-5.

4.Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.

Wheres your link????