Topic: The age of the earth

OK, I'm going to be relentless here:

      If green house gases really are causing our planet to warm up, and our planet is millions of years old... Wouldn't it be flaming hot by now?

      Needless to say no one has proven that our planet is millions of years old (to my knowledge), and if we are basing this theory of global warming on a theory that hasn't been proven, than why are we spending millions of dollars trying to solve a problem we can't prove?

      Ah, the evil SUV.  This is where I draw the line, I will not tolerate a govt or a person dictating to me which car I should drive.  If you want to drive a hybrid that's fine, I'm not complaining.  If I want to drive an SUV and your telling me its bad for the environment, please remember that all human activity contributes to a world-killing 3% of all carbon dioxide in the world.  I like big cars, and once again I will not tolerate a dictation of what I should drive.

      People aren't brain dead, have you really met someone who is THAT stupid?  And if he wants to drive a car one block who the crap cares? 

      "You need a brain!"  *walks away to go get a bike*.  Really?  I mean seriously?  Do I have to explain the wrongs here?  On the bright side this was executed very well.  Despite it being total propaganda.  You had great animation and voice acting.

Re: The age of the earth

What Bloogyo said. mini/tongue

-JK

what could have been: jeffrey and the old man make some robots
                      art page -- tumblr --youtube
              bricksinmotion's #13th best curmudgeon

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:

no one has proven that our planet is millions of years old (to my knowledge)

Y-you-you've...you've-*facepalm* you've never heard of dinosaurs?

Re: The age of the earth

Bloogyo, I don't even know how I should be replying to you. I am lost for words by your comments...in a bad way. My best guess is that you are joking, if so, mini/lol

http://www.ionlinephilippines.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nicolas_cage_broke.jpg


Anyway, nice little film. mini/smile I liked it!

Last edited by Scypax (May 15, 2010 (04:18pm))

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8180/7904765754_a766f0e523.jpg
Into the darkness once more. I walk into the unknown. To a far better life than I've ever known.

Re: The age of the earth

Keshen wrote:
bloogyo wrote:

no one has proven that our planet is millions of years old (to my knowledge)

Y-you-you've...you've-*facepalm* you've never heard of dinosaurs?

Are you referring to relative dating? I'm going to take Hazzat's advice and go to the war room if need be.
And scypax I'm not joking.  But I'll be interested in hearing your side of the argument.

Last edited by bloogyo (May 15, 2010 (04:27pm))

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:
Keshen wrote:
bloogyo wrote:

no one has proven that our planet is millions of years old (to my knowledge)

Y-you-you've...you've-*facepalm* you've never heard of dinosaurs?

Are you referring to carbon dating?

Are...are you serious?

Re: The age of the earth

*relative* dating.  If we're going to debate about this move it to the war room.

Re: The age of the earth

Not that I don't agree with you Bloogyo, but that was a very, very, VERY bad move you made.

Don't be fooled, my avatar is a facade of conformity.

Re: The age of the earth

Please explain.

Re: The age of the earth

Guys, Guys, STOP SPAMMING THE POOR DUDE'S MOVIE THREAD. Move it to the War Room or something. Or just chat in PM.

If you want to know my opinion Bloogyo, PM me, or make a tread in the war room.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8180/7904765754_a766f0e523.jpg
Into the darkness once more. I walk into the unknown. To a far better life than I've ever known.

Re: The age of the earth

ScypaxPictures wrote:

Guys, Guys, STOP SPAMMING THE POOR DUDE'S MOVIE THREAD. Move it to the War Room or something. Or just chat in PM.

If you want to know my opinion Bloogyo, PM me, or make a tread in the war room.

Na, I think we should end it right here if everybody's done.

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:

Are you referring to carbon dating?

No, I'm referring to dinosaurs...

Why go to the war room? Animations like these are made to inspire discussion, so that's what we're doing. I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a twist. The animation is propaganda, obviously. I don't see why we're not allowed to discuss anything OTHER than the animation and sound quality.


bloogyo:

Scientists have concluded the the earth is about 4.55 billion years old based on radiometric dating done on rocks. They know the decay rate (half life) of certain elements, so they look at these elements to see how far they have decayed from their original state (I think?). Arguing that carbon dating is inaccurate is valid, sure. Arguing that it is inaccurate by 4.5 billion years so it conveniently doesn't disprove the bible, isn't, in my opinion.
I do agree that man-made global warming isn't true, because other planets are experiencing climate change too (planets without SUV's, by the way). Plus, there's something called the OISM Petition Project, which involved the signatures of 31,000 scientists rejecting the theory of man made global warming.
I'm not a scientist, but if there were 31000 of them trying to convince me of something on a subject that they know a lot more about, than me, I would go with them, instead of a government which is using global warming as an excuse to implement a carbon tax instead of actually fixing the imaginary problem.

I researched all this stuff when I made a renewable energy animation a while back, and the overwhelming majority convinced me that man made global warming is a money making scam and an excuse for an invasive tax which centralises control to the government. Not surprising.

^ That's the first half-assed essay I've written since college.
mini/sunnies

Re: The age of the earth

OK, I'm tired of getting facepalmed. 

"What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.

Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions."

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:

OK, I'm tired of getting facepalmed. 

"What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.

Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions."

*facepalm*

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:

Please explain.

Ok, I will.


Saying things like that when at least 80% of active users on this site have a different view then you on this subject isn't a good idea because you will get automatically facepalm spammed throughout the entire thread.

I'm totally for speaking your mind on things, but sometimes you need to know when to keep your mouth shut on these matters.

Don't be fooled, my avatar is a facade of conformity.

Re: The age of the earth

I agree with bloogyo, scientists don't know what they're talking about. It's not like science has any basis on fact.


I'm kind of curious how you've come to this conclusion, becuase it semmes like you've been sitting around your parents while they're [email protected]#$%^&* about the carbon tax to other SUV friends. Also, Global warming has been proven, though its not realistic to say that humans have actually influenced it.

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo, what you're saying is essentially wrong. I did a ton of debating on the subject a few years ago and don't really feel like resuming it, but you are misinformed. I hope you'll realize that at some point. Go read about it.

Young-earth creationism isn't a "reexamination" of facts, it's a last-ditch attempt to justify a literal view of the Bible.

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:

Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning.

O RLY?

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:

OK, I'm going to be relentless here:

      If green house gases really are causing our planet to warm up, and our planet is millions of years old... Wouldn't it be flaming hot by now?

Well, the earth does have periods of great heat and of great cold, the reason for the more recent global warming can be put down to the industrial revolution from the 1700s onwards. Before then not much new Greenhouse Gases were added to the atmosphere, allowing a good balance between hot and cold to go on. From the 1700s onwards, the human race began to burn fuel such as coal on a industrial scale. This has continued to the present day, adding more and more gas.

11:41 Hazzat NO FUN ALLOWED IN BRICKFILMING COMMUNITY

Re: The age of the earth

bloogyo wrote:

Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions."

*Facepalm* Science actually can use two (I think) different methods to test how old something is. The first it what Keshen said a while up there about the decaying of particles, and another is that scientists look at about the oldest rock they can find (which is way older than 6,000 years by the way).

I also think there's another way, but I'm in a bit of a hurry right now so I have to go. Sorry.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BGanimations/Signatures/final_400x100.png