40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

[LittleNipper]

The devil's at it again, this time planting into the ground the skull of a giant sea creature that--if such a thing were possible--could crush an SUV.

Researchers say the marine reptile, which measured an impressive 15m (50ft) long, had a bite force of about 45 tonnes (33,000lbs) per square inch.
The creature's partial skull was dug up last summer in the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard by a Norwegian-led team.
Dubbed "Predator X", it patrolled the oceans some 147 million years ago.
Its jaws may have been more powerful than those of a Tyrannosaurus rex, though estimates of the dinosaur's bite vary substantially.
​

Of course, we know that there's no mention of such a creature in the Bible, and that since the world's only about 6,000 years old, this "fossil" is only there to test our faith in the World's Only True Religion, Christianity.

Satan Plants More Dinosaur Bones To Trick Humans | Synthesis.net

Well, see the problem is that the fossils were formed with pre-existing sediment stirred up as a result of the GREAT FLOOD. If the rock the sediment was formed from rates a particular "geologically chemical age," the fossil (a mere impression of the former item) should also rate the same. So, the false aging of rock, sand, and minerals; should likewise result in a misapplication of age to the fossils formed of such... That is my hypothesis anyway.

How old is concrete?

 

[tumbleweed41]

GOD isn't the prankster, the scientists assured of such dates are simply niave of to their own limitations.

But you know better, don't ya?

Tell me, what scientific methods have you, or any of the YE Creationists used to verify the claim of a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth?
What are your geological, anthropological, cosmological, archeological, and biological findings?

 

[Mr Cheese]

GOD isn't the prankster, the scientists assured of such dates are simply niave of to their own limitations.

Sure....

Yet it still stands, there is a huge difference between 6000 years and millions

and whther its accurate or not, scientific methodology can show rocks are most certainly older than 6000 yrs old......

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well, see the problem is that the fossils were formed with pre-existing sediment stirred up as a result of the GREAT FLOOD. If the rock the sediment was formed from rates a particular "geologically chemical age," the fossil (a mere impression of the former item) should also rate the same. So, the false aging of rock, sand, and minerals; should likewise result in a misapplication of age to the fossils formed of such... That is my hypothesis anyway.

How old is concrete?

:bow: there's no arguing with this...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, see the problem is that the fossils were formed with pre-existing sediment stirred up as a result of the GREAT FLOOD. If the rock the sediment was formed from rates a particular composition, the fossil (a mere impression of the former item) should also rate the same.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "rate"?

So, the false aging of rock, sand, and minerals; should likewise result in a misapplication of age to the fossils formed of such... That is my hypothesis anyway.

Ah... I think I get you now. You think that when geologists measure the age of a sedimentary rock, they're measuring the age of the original sediment particles (which might be much older than the age of the rock itself), and then assume that the particles, the rock, and any fossils in it are all the same age... is that it?

If so, then you're basing your conclusion on a false idea of how dating works, both for fossils and for rock strata.

How old is concrete?

Depends on the concrete, but in every case, the aggregate in the concrete is older than the concrete itself.

 

[Man of Faith]

there are layers. each layer represents a process that begins and ends. even if there was a layer missing, it would be noticed. content of a layer gives data you need

.

How do we know how old the layers are?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, see the problem is that the fossils were formed with pre-existing sediment stirred up as a result of the GREAT FLOOD. If the rock the sediment was formed from rates a particular composition, the fossil (a mere impression of the former item) should also rate the same. So, the false aging of rock, sand, and minerals; should likewise result in a misapplication of age to the fossils formed of such... That is my hypothesis anyway.

How old is concrete?

1. There is no geological or anthropological evidence of a Great Worldwide Flood. (Unless you have evidence otherwise.)
2. Concrete is not a rock. It is a amalgam of limestone, shale, iron ore, gravel (various minerals), water and sand.

 

[LittleNipper]

I like your sentiment, but I would disagree....

many people ARE stupid
also many people are ignorant
which are very different things.

I have found that the people who think they know it all (or even enough) are the ones with the biggest disadvantage with regards to stupidity and ignorance.

 

[LittleNipper]

1. There is no geological or anthropological evidence of a Great Worldwide Flood. (Unless you have evidence otherwise.)
2. Concrete is not a rock. It is a amalgam of limestone, shale, iron ore, gravel (various minerals), water and sand.

Most all the fossils were formed as a result of the FLOOD. The high mountains and low canyons are the direct or indirect result of the flood. The "ancient " extinction of many sea creatures is a mark of the FLOOD. And chalk, slate, sandstone, and limestone are amalgams of what?

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "rate"?

By "rate" I would mean the amount of time it takes radioactivity measurment to either decrease.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most all the fossils were formed as a result of the FLOOD. The high mountains and low canyons are the direct or indirect result of the flood. The "ancient " extinction of many sea creatures is a mark of the FLOOD.

Please explain to us the mechanism by which the flood would have caused fossilation and the formation of mountains and canyons.

And chalk, slate, sandstone, and limestone are amalgams of what?

I don't know the composition of slate off the top of my head, but chalk and limestone are sedimentary rocks formed from the remains of tiny marine organisms, compressed into rock form over millions of years. Sandstone is a sedimentary rock made from compressing sand particles over millions of years.

How does this help your case for a young Earth?

 

[tumbleweed41]

How do we know how old the layers are?

Principle of superposition: Younger sedimentary rocks are deposited on top of older sedimentary rocks.
Principle of cross-cutting relations: Any geologic feature is younger than anything else that it cuts across.
Radiometric dating: Some elements have forms (called isotopes) with unstable atomic nuclei that have a tendency to change, or decay. For example, U-235 is an unstable isotope of uranium that has 92 protons and 143 neutrons in the nucl eus of each atom. Through a series of changes within the nucleus, it emits several particles, ending up with 82 protons and 125 neutrons. This is a stable condition, and there are no more changes in the atomic nucleus. A nucleus with that number of protons is called lead (chemical symbol Pb). The protons (82) and neutrons (125) total 207. This particular form (isotope) of lead is called Pb-207. U-235 is the parent isotope of Pb-207, which is the daughter isotope.
Dendrochronology: a dating technique that makes use of tree growth rings.
Thermoluminescence: a dating technique used when man-made pottery is involved.

Repeat all tests until independently verified by various researchers .
​

 

[Mr Cheese]

I have found that the people who think they know it all (or even enough) are the ones with the biggest disadvantage with regards to stupidity and ignorance.

I have found those that believe one book (above all others, to the point where said belief negates anythign contrary), be it harry potter and the goblet of magic beans, chemistry 101 for the supremely stupid, how to bake monkey pies for lent... or the bible....

tend to be ignoramuses. I never once said I know it all, in fact just the contrary, I have stated in many other posts, that I do NOT know it all.

But I understand conversations with you are rather pointless in my opnion.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Principle of superposition: Younger sedimentary rocks are deposited on top of older sedimentary rocks.
Principle of cross-cutting relations: Any geologic feature is younger than anything else that it cuts across.
Radiometric dating: Some elements have forms (called isotopes) with unstable atomic nuclei that have a tendency to change, or decay. For example, U-235 is an unstable isotope of uranium that has 92 protons and 143 neutrons in the nucl eus of each atom. Through a series of changes within the nucleus, it emits several particles, ending up with 82 protons and 125 neutrons. This is a stable condition, and there are no more changes in the atomic nucleus. A nucleus with that number of protons is called lead (chemical symbol Pb). The protons (82) and neutrons (125) total 207. This particular form (isotope) of lead is called Pb-207. U-235 is the parent isotope of Pb-207, which is the daughter isotope.
Dendrochronology: a dating technique that makes use of tree growth rings.
Thermoluminescence: a dating technique used when man-made pottery is involved.

Repeat all tests until independently verified by various researchers .​

Does this relate to mouldy HoHOs?

How old is a pretzzel dated 1845?

 

[LittleNipper]

:bow: there's no arguing with this...

The interesting thing about this photo, is that fact that the dark suit pants and jacket show no signs of dust --- that goes for the shoes as well. So, what appears to be a suited male with his head buried in the sand, isn't very likely.

 

[whereismynotecard]

What hope for Science when 40% of americans believe the world was created 6000 years ago. You know how it goes, its start off with a reasonable figure and ends up ridiculous, but this is what we are told in Australia. Is it true?

Are you sure about this statistic? Where was I when this survey went out? No one in my family got to take part in it... Are you sure it's not just someone making up a number they believe is accurate?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What hope for Science when 40% of americans believe the world was created 6000 years ago. You know how it goes, its start off with a reasonable figure and ends up ridiculous, but this is what we are told in Australia. Is it true?

I'm sure the number of people who have thought about, and examined, the available evidence enough to even form an actual belief about the age of the earth, is so small as to render the results of these types of polls meaningless.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The interesting thing about this photo, is that fact that the dark suit pants and jacket show no signs of dust --- that goes for the shoes as well. So, what appears to be a suited male with his head buried in the sand, isn't very likely.

:sarcastic
this better:

maybe this one of formation swimmers practising is better?:

 

[tumbleweed41]

Most all the fossils were formed as a result of the FLOOD. The high mountains and low canyons are the direct or indirect result of the flood. The "ancient " extinction of many sea creatures is a mark of the FLOOD.

Sorry, you obviously have no understanding of geological formations, or the necessary elements for fossilization.
Again, do you have any geological or anthropological evidence of a Great Worldwide Flood. Do you have ANY evidence AT ALL of a Worldwide Flood occurring in the last 10,000 yrs?

And chalk, slate, sandstone, and limestone are amalgams of what?

Chalk and limestone are a form of fossilized calcite plates.
Slate is mainly composed of quartz and muscovite or illite, often along with biotite, chlorite, hematite, and pyrite and, less frequently, apatite, graphite, kaolin, magnetite, tourmaline, or zircon as well as feldspar.
Most sandstone is composed of quartz and/or feldspar.
But silica sand is what is usually used in concrete, not sandstone.
As all of the above, are formed from either prolonged weatherization and/or depositing,, or intense pressure, millions of years are usually involved.

 

[AxisMundi]

The interesting thing about this photo, is that fact that the dark suit pants and jacket show no signs of dust --- that goes for the shoes as well. So, what appears to be a suited male with his head buried in the sand, isn't very likely.

Like the entirety of your YECer nonsence, the image is of course, a fake.