Dinosaurs in the bible...

[DragonBlaze]

Well I came to check a PM I got, and I saw this topic, there are a few things I wish to say, however, since I didn't read most of the topic, these things might have been mentions.

First off, there are mentionings of 'dinosaurs' in the bible. Perhaps they're just metaphores, but they're in there. I forgot where, but they talk about the leviathan and such somehwere in the old testiment.

My next point, when God created the world, he created things with age. Adam didn't start as a baby, he was already a full grown man. The same thing goes for trees, so I think logically the same would apply to the earth itself. So who knows, God could have created the world at the age of 6 billion.

Meh, thats my opinion.

[Osmose]

carbon dating is not a reliable sorce

Well I feel it's my duty to provide references to convince you otherwise.

Now, your original assumption that Carbon dating cannot prove that the Earth is millions of years old is actually correct. According to  Wikipedia  and it's sources, Radiocarbon dating is precise up to 60,000 years ago.

The way Radio-carbon dating works is simple. The particle Carbon-14 degrades at a half-life rate of 6000 years. This means that every 6000 years from it's formation, the particle loses half of it's mass. Now, the way they date with this is that when an organism dies, it stops producing carbon atoms (all organic life is defined as substances with carbon particles). Then, after 6000 years, the carbon-14 that was created right before it died is only 1/2 the mass of what it used to be. Another 6000 years after that, 1/4th, and so on and so forth until the mass becomes so miniscule that it's neglegable and unmeasurable.

That point is about 60,000 years later. But how do we measure longer in the past?

Quite simple. We simply use a substance that degrades slower. Which leads me back to my original intent.

Again to the wonderful Wikipedia, the  Age of the Earth  article explains everything else simply. Radiometric dating using  Uranium-Lead Dating , which can be accurate at periods around at least 3 billion years to an accuracy of 2 million years, which is equivalent to accuracy of 3000 years with an error of 2 years - a margin for error, but one that doesn't effect the point.

I'll leave most of the heavy reading to you, but my point stands - there are quite a few valid methods for determining the planet's age, and they all point to the planet being a few billion years old.

[Smokey_locs2006]

Originally posted by Desimodontidae
So I was thinking... and if God supposedly created man, then how do christians explain the fact that dinosaurs lived before humans? Just a quandary...

Easy.. in the bible is says that god created the earth, and all that stuff right? Then it says the eath became void. The key word is became. Which I think means something had to happen for the earth to become void.

[drenrin2120]

Originally posted by Smokey_locs2006

quote:

Originally posted by Desimodontidae So I was thinking... and if God supposedly created man, then how do christians explain the fact that dinosaurs lived before humans? Just a quandary...

Easy.. in the bible is says that god created the earth, and all that stuff right? Then it says the eath became void. The key word is became. Which I think means something had to happen for the earth to become void.

Hm, good point, by void the bible could be referring to a state of little life. Thus, the extinction of dinosaurs. But this would suggest that the dinos died suddenly, did they? A meteor would explain that, but some think it was an ice age that killed off the dinos. To me, an ice age would make more sense, because if a meteor were to hit then how did some life survive if a meteor is suppose to cause nuclear winter. But of course, nuclear winter is just a theory and can never be proven until a meteor hits earth. There's always a chance a meteor strike is really not as significant as currently believed.

[PyroAlchemist]

well I'm atheiaticomnist which means I don't believe in god or gods but I do believe in certain parts of different religions. Like one is I believe in karma.

[Smokey_locs2006]

Originally posted by drenrin2120

quote:

Originally posted by Smokey_locs2006 quote: Originally posted by Desimodontidae So I was thinking... and if God supposedly created man, then how do christians explain the fact that dinosaurs lived before humans? Just a quandary... Easy.. in the bible is says that god created the earth, and all that stuff right? Then it says the eath became void. The key word is became. Which I think means something had to happen for the earth to become void.

Hm, good point, by void the bible could be referring to a state of little life. Thus, the extinction of dinosaurs. But this would suggest that the dinos died suddenly, did they? A meteor would explain that, but some think it was an ice age that killed off the dinos. To me, an ice age would make more sense, because if a meteor were to hit then how did some life survive if a meteor is suppose to cause nuclear winter. But of course, nuclear winter is just a theory and can never be proven until a meteor hits earth. There's always a chance a meteor strike is really not as significant as currently believed.

Yeah Nuclear winter.. I just don't believe in that. I think an Ice Age happened as well. That or the earth just changed too much for Dinos to live.

[Razor]

What? Nuclear Winter is supposed to be caused by the use of nuclear weapons, not by a meteorite. Unless that meteorite was nuclear, maybe.

[Drace]

Originally posted by PyroAlchemist
well I'm atheiaticomnist which means I don't believe in god or gods but I do believe in certain parts of different religions. Like one is I believe in karma.

I'm an atheistcommunist too then. My good karma rocks your socks.

Awwww.... everyone ignoring my post

[Sephiroth rocks]

I'm an atheistcommunist too then.

lol, I hope you meant atheiaticomnist!

That's all fine and well if you assume that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, which most people are pretty sure we're not. If they consistantly cannot look farther than 15 billion light years away (And I'm even a bit skeptical as to the range of Hubble, or whatever they use if they don't use Hubble anymore), than they may just be hitting the maximum range of the telescope. Certainly it is convincing proof that the Universe is AT LEAST 15 billion years old, but it doesn't come across as being the actual age.

1. I don't really get what you're trying to say, why would the Earth have to be in the middle of the universe for the "max distance=age"-rule to apply?

2. It's not like all the astronomers in the world are looking at space through one single telescope there're hundreds and neither of them no matter how big they are, can look further away than the observable border of the universe.

And for the meteor thing as far as I know the enormous amount of matter that was thrown into space by the impact, shrouded the Earth, unabling sunlight to break through which caused the temperature to drop drastically extending the dinosaurs.

[Moosetroop11]

Originally posted by Osmose

quote:

carbon dating is not a reliable sorce

Well I feel it's my duty to provide references to convince you otherwise.

Now, your original assumption that Carbon dating cannot prove that the Earth is millions of years old is actually correct. According to  Wikipedia  and it's sources, Radiocarbon dating is precise up to 60,000 years ago.

The way Radio-carbon dating works is simple. The particle Carbon-14 degrades at a half-life rate of 6000 years. This means that every 6000 years from it's formation, the particle loses half of it's mass. Now, the way they date with this is that when an organism dies, it stops producing carbon atoms (all organic life is defined as substances with carbon particles). Then, after 6000 years, the carbon-14 that was created right before it died is only 1/2 the mass of what it used to be. Another 6000 years after that, 1/4th, and so on and so forth until the mass becomes so miniscule that it's neglegable and unmeasurable.

That point is about 60,000 years later. But how do we measure longer in the past?

Quite simple. We simply use a substance that degrades slower. Which leads me back to my original intent.

Again to the wonderful Wikipedia, the  Age of the Earth  article explains everything else simply. Radiometric dating using  Uranium-Lead Dating , which can be accurate at periods around at least 3 billion years to an accuracy of 2 million years, which is equivalent to accuracy of 3000 years with an error of 2 years - a margin for error, but one that doesn't effect the point.

I'll leave most of the heavy reading to you, but my point stands - there are quite a few valid methods for determining the planet's age, and they all point to the planet being a few billion years old.

 

[Spike21]

i know how carbon dating works it just... never mind

and about the dinasours. dinasours were acualy mentioned in the bible... i am now out of this conversation

[Razor]

Originally posted by Sephiroth rocks
1. I don't really get what you're trying to say, why would the Earth have to be in the middle of the universe for the "max distance=age"-rule to apply?

It is currently 5:50am in the morning. I had to get up for one reason or another, so I decided "the computer". You should be thankful that I am going to draw a diagram.

So, 18 minutes later:


So, the universe on the left is the one where we are the center of the universe. If we were to use radiation that was sent from the expanding boarder of the universe (or stars or w/e close to it) we would a near constant age for each different radiation.

Now, Universe B is the one where we live in. Where we've been thrown off to a side somewhere. Since we are closer to an edge of the universe, we get radiation from that particular side a lot faster than the radiation from the opposite side, which has a lot more space to travel.

[drenrin2120]

I wonder, if we can view stars billions of light years away with the hubble telescope, why can't we zoom in on a planet and see if there is any life? I would think scientist would try that, like zooming in on cells in a micrscope.

[Razor]

Well, considering the stars aren't very big when we zoom in, and also that in comparison to stars, planets are pretty much microscopic.

Also, not every star has planets.

[drenrin2120]

Originally posted by Razor
Well, considering the stars aren't very big when we zoom in, and also that in comparison to stars, planets are pretty much microscopic.

Also, not every star has planets.

I forgot about the fact that stars are like a million times bigger than planets. But still, aren't there any solar systems nearby we can track down?