Re: Well, My Opinion Of The US Public Just Went Down Again...
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:23 pm
Thank you.@ Deep - excellently put.
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
https://mail.ditl.org/forum/
Thank you.@ Deep - excellently put.
I find this interesting. You say you're willing to believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old, based on what scientists have determined. Yet you're willing to dismiss humans being many thousands of years old, despite what scientists have determined. Why is this, if I may ask?Nickswitz wrote:Truthfully, I'm not sure, maybe their wrong, maybe I am, but as of now, I'm sticking to what I believe...
We know because we can date both human remains and dinosaur remains and get vastly different numbers regarding how old they are. There's also the fact that no human civilisation has ever mentioned how those pesky Dienonychus keep killing off their cattle....and the farmers too.Nickswitz wrote:How do you know? and we may have, but I was unsure of what he meant when I said that... I have no problem believing dinosaurs were dead long before we were around...
If it were so innacurate, would they still be using it?Nickswitz wrote: The fact that they have been wrong before on carbon dating...
I can't find the source right now, but a few years ago there was a university student that used some radiological dating method, and got a reading of like 3,000 years... And they proved that it had to be incorrect due to the rock formations that it was found in. And I know Carbon dating is rarely accurate, because of it's short radiological decay, but the one used had a rating of like 300 million years, or some insanely large number of years...
Is it, I don't doubt you, I was just thinking it was the other way around, we have more free oxygen molecules, rather than CO2 which they definitely had plenty of.Sionnach Glic wrote:There's also the simple fact that many of the larger dinosaurs simply couldn't have survived along side us due to the atmosphere. The dinosaurs lived in an era when the atmosphere was very oxygen-rich, far more so than it is today. That abundance of oxygen is one of the reasons why some dinosaurs became so incredibly big. Drop a Diplodochus anywhere on modern day Earth and it'd probably suffocate.
Ah, thanks. I knew oxygen and CO2 levels were higher, but was unaware that the atmospheric pressure was greater. So I think we can pretty safely conclude that the larger dinosaurs would die if they were introduced to our Earth.Lt. Staplic wrote:Is it, I don't doubt you, I was just thinking it was the other way around, we have more free oxygen molecules, rather than CO2 which they definitely had plenty of.
EDIT:
Just did some poking around and we're both right, the O2 Concentrations were as high as like 35% at times with the CO2 levels being double what they are today, the atmospheric pressure was also over 2x what it is now IIRC
just thought I'd throw that out there.
This wasn't the only case, just the most recent one, I will try very hard to find it. It was a few years ago, I think 2 or 3, maybe less...Sionnach Glic wrote:If it were so innacurate, would they still be using it?
And I find it highly unlikely that a university student discovered that this process was useless, despite it having been tested by numerous scientists. I'd be very interested in reading your source.
The fact that the earth may be billions of years old in no way conflicts with what I have been raised to believe, and I accept it as fact, what I was raised to believe. However, the fact that humans are tens of thousands of years old conflicts with this belief, so yes, it is because I was raised to believe one thing and they say something else, and I stick to what I first knew. It may be a stupid reason, but until I have concrete evidence of that fact, I'll stick to what I believe.Sionnach Glic wrote:I find this interesting. You say you're willing to believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old, based on what scientists have determined. Yet you're willing to dismiss humans being many thousands of years old, despite what scientists have determined. Why is this, if I may ask?
As for this, I know, I said I know I think 2 times, and I accept that, I just thought he had meant something else when I was responding to what he said.Sionnach Glic wrote:We know because we can date both human remains and dinosaur remains and get vastly different numbers regarding how old they are. There's also the fact that no human civilisation has ever mentioned how those pesky Dienonychus keep killing off their cattle....and the farmers too.
It's obviously not spot on, but it's still adequately accurate. Do you seriously think that it'd be in use if it dated a 10,000 year old object as being 65 million years old?Nickswitz wrote:This wasn't the only case, just the most recent one, I will try very hard to find it. It was a few years ago, I think 2 or 3, maybe less...
But yes, they still may use it as it's the closest they may get to an exact date, regardless of its inaccuracy, it's still something.
And what would you see as concrete evidence? What would you need to see to believe?Nickswitz wrote:The fact that the earth may be billions of years old in no way conflicts with what I have been raised to believe, and I accept it as fact, what I was raised to believe. However, the fact that humans are tens of thousands of years old conflicts with this belief, so yes, it is because I was raised to believe one thing and they say something else, and I stick to what I first knew. It may be a stupid reason, but until I have concrete evidence of that fact, I'll stick to what I believe.
Could you rephrase that a bit? I've not got a clue what you're saying here.Nickswitz wrote: As for this, I know, I said I know I think 2 times, and I accept that, I just thought he had meant something else when I was responding to what he said
I'm pretty sure it isn't that off, but it can be off by as much as 5,000 years, well, was, they may now have better radiological equipment, but I know it was vastly off a few years ago.Sionnach Glic wrote:It's obviously not spot on, but it's still adequately accurate. Do you seriously think that it'd be in use if it dated a 10,000 year old object as being 65 million years old?
I'm not actually sure...Sionnach Glic wrote:And what would you see as concrete evidence? What would you need to see to believe?
Sorry, I was talking about the dinosaurs living when we were, I thought that Seafort I believe was talking about something else when I was rebutting his statement, but yes, I realize that there is almost no chance dinosaurs were around when humans were, and if any were they were probably only small ones, otherwise there would be some myths about them somewhere...Sionnach Glic wrote:Could you rephrase that a bit? I've not got a clue what you're saying here.
"Vastly off?" We have, at the lower limit, a time frame of 65 million years ago for dinosaurs being extant. An error of 5,000 years is 0.0077%.Nickswitz wrote:I'm pretty sure it isn't that off, but it can be off by as much as 5,000 years, well, was, they may now have better radiological equipment, but I know it was vastly off a few years ago.
Yes, for 65 million years that's a small number, but at the other end, at say, 10,000 years, thats a large difference.Mikey wrote:"Vastly off?" We have, at the lower limit, a time frame of 65 million years ago for dinosaurs being extant. An error of 5,000 years is 0.0077%.Nickswitz wrote:I'm pretty sure it isn't that off, but it can be off by as much as 5,000 years, well, was, they may now have better radiological equipment, but I know it was vastly off a few years ago.