Chiefgroover Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Just watched a prog on TV about a piece of rock that has been dated at 400 MILLION years old.. Not exactly young then compared with the 10,000 years or so that self-aware man has been on the planet........... If you believe all you hear, you'll eat all you see. Dated how? by what method? there IS NO METHOD thats reliable. You'd know this if you take the time to actually read the thread. Very funny student prank. Rocks taken from Mount St.Helenas (erupted early 80's) to a top Swiss carbon dating Lab back in 1996. The lab refuse to take the stone in for dating without an "expected age". The students reckoned that one million years old was a nice round figure. The age given by the lab when the report was generated was 1.375 million years old. No, not 15, but 1.375 million. I rest my case. Could it be there is a few quid to be made out of rock dating? maybe they dont like to dissapoint the customer? do scientists like money? do bears shit in the woods? NOW start reading the damm thread before posting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Trev, your either drunk or taking the piss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 If you believe all you hear, you'll eat all you see. Dated how? by what method? there IS NO METHOD thats reliable. You'd know this if you take the time to actually read the thread. The dating technique used is, as I understood it, based on some special crystals which are contained in the rock. The crystals contain uranium which gradually (and uniformly) converts to lead. By measuring the change from uranium to lead (which is supposed to be totally uniform and ultra accurate) is how the age date is calculated. Now if you also happen to be a renowned mineral scientist, perhaps I can believe your story instead......... :rolleyes: And as for "If you believe all you hear, you'll eat all you see." I don't eat everything I see, especially when it has obvious shit on it........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminator Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I am not religious at all. It annoys me that children are forced to study it and believe in it at school. I have nothing against people that are religious though, my sister wasn't at all and then had a very serious accident and then for some reason got into God stuff. I am not allowed to take the Lords name in vain or I get severly hit. It's ok to F and Blind as long as I don't say "God" of "Jesus" still, she is nuts. Often depend on the type of school. Children have to learn about a variety of faiths. They are not forced to believe in any particular religion in most schools. The brain needs to be fully developed and firmly placed in logical operations before any young person can make a decision about religion. until then Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairies, Jack Frost and god are all equally acceptable realities. Trying make children believe in any faith before this is just indoctrination. Which I believe is totally wrong. If a faith requires the indoctrination of the young to secure believers then that faith is weak. Having a belief in a faith is just that it is a belief, once held it is never likely to be challenged as whitnessed in this thread. All faiths can argue their own justification. The trouble is some holder of these beliefs consider that they alone are right and the rest of us are wrong. There are always at least to sides to any agrument to consider that one is better than another is arogance. Looking back over time I believe more people have died in wars in the name of religion than in any other. Religion can breed bigotry, intolerance and hatred, all admirable qualities, which I am sure gods admire. I really hope I am wrong, but the seeds of the next world war are already sewn and it will be between two major faith groups, but all of us will get sucked into it. The dating technique used is, as I understood it, based on some special crystals which are contained in the rock. The crystals contain uranium which gradually (and uniformly) converts to lead. By measuring the change from uranium to lead (which is supposed to be totally uniform and ultra accurate) is how the age date is calculated. Yes my father spent 40 years in this field. Half life or something, very accurate way to measure time. Some radioactive element have incredibly long half lives, bit like some of my farts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Wahst this got to do with the evolution vs creation debate? Actually mate, the original thread was a poll on the club member's chosen religion. Evolution vs Creation came later as a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambertpig Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 i personally think all religion is c@@p. it has been and still is the cause of nearly all fighting and trouble throughout the world. i think for english people its just a hobby and for some faiths its a beleif forced on by years of brainwashing. if everybody just had respect for themselves,respect for others and took responsibility for there own actions then the world would live in harmony..RELIGION SUCKS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 The dating technique used is, as I understood it, based on some special crystals which are contained in the rock. The crystals contain uranium which gradually (and uniformly) converts to lead. By measuring the change from uranium to lead (which is supposed to be totally uniform and ultra accurate) is how the age date is calculated. As Termi said, this is a half life of a product - I think this is the same thing (or very similar at least) to carbon dating, which the Chief said earlier is only accurate to a few thousand years or something. I can believe this as it's similar to a lot of mathematical problems with infinite series (eg: 1/x) - you can record it forever but it pretty quickly gets very small and hard to read. Trev, your either drunk or taking the piss. Wahst this got to do with the evolution vs creation debate? Chill dude, don't start getting arsey now cos so far this has been a really interesting thread and you've put in some brilliant posts - not the usual drivel that gets spouted (from both sides) but some reasoned debates with evidence for and against etc. Lets keep it easy shall we. And TBH I'm not sure whether I was serious or not!! I do wonder what the 'Christian' answer is to where all the water went - did God take it away? Was it that it didn't cover the entire Earth but washed over it (like a tsunami!)? I'm sure you have the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xksupra Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Even all though I was inflicted with dyslexia from an early age I still believe in Dog:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 As Termi said, this is a half life of a product - I think this is the same thing (or very similar at least) to carbon dating, which the Chief said earlier is only accurate to a few thousand years or something. I can believe this as it's similar to a lot of mathematical problems with infinite series (eg: 1/x) - you can record it forever but it pretty quickly gets very small and hard to read. Chill dude, don't start getting arsey now cos so far this has been a really interesting thread and you've put in some brilliant posts - not the usual drivel that gets spouted (from both sides) but some reasoned debates with evidence for and against etc. Lets keep it easy shall we. And TBH I'm not sure whether I was serious or not!! I do wonder what the 'Christian' answer is to where all the water went - did God take it away? Was it that it didn't cover the entire Earth but washed over it (like a tsunami!)? I'm sure you have the answer. could of gone on to form the polar ice caps/antarctica? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 This thread was hijacked, yes, well all have known this for ages. Rock dating, how can you prove its accurate, who has been around that long to confirm, estimate is all you can do. Sorry mate, but thats FACT. Trev, I am chilled and amused by your post. OK, this whole debate is now pear shaped. Almost every question put forward here in the last couple of days has been addressed already. We now have a new set of writers who cant be bothered to read the entire thread and digest it before wasting others time with repeat questions. My time is precious to me, therefore I leave this post, as it's now going nowhere and degenerating. If anyone who thinks I am getting lazy, when you have contributed as much to this thread as me, then I'll listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 As Termi said, this is a half life of a product - I think this is the same thing (or very similar at least) to carbon dating, which the Chief said earlier is only accurate to a few thousand years or something. I can believe this as it's similar to a lot of mathematical problems with infinite series (eg: 1/x) - you can record it forever but it pretty quickly gets very small and hard to read. That still makes it awfully old doh............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.