I don't see how it is possible to be 6000 years old in any wildest dream?

God would have had to have done some serious slight of hand juggling of the fabric of reality to make that work..... i guess in that sense its possible.

What got me was that she thinks the fossil record was intentionally placed (need I remind you these fossils and bones have been found all over the globe) as a haox to fool people and yet I'M the silly one. XD

She used to tell me that my belief in evolution was a sign of ignorance.

A hoax? If it is a hoax, then it is a hoax created by God for the purpose of hiding his existence by making people believe in evolution.

Believing in evolution is indeed a sign of ignorance if you don't understand exactly what it is and be aware of its limitations.

Yes, the original Julian Date calender counted from 12:00 on 1st January 4713 BC. Astronomers still use it today (for the reason that it's a simple Day Counter that has no discontinuity overnight, when they are making their measurements :) )

The models for radioactive decay are trusted highly in science, as they predict abundances in the Earth's crust which we can measure. If we model the generation of heavier elements inside the core of stars via fusion, which we can test with fusion reactors here on Earth, then the radioactive decay from these heavier elements from these modelled abundances to lead gives a certain age of the Earth. We can also estimate the age of the Sun from its rate of Hydrogen burn (again, we can test this in the lab in fusion reactors). Not saying these things are foolproof, but they have incredibly low uncertainties.

Okay then, I'm outta here! :P

Could be right... personally i give it 30% chance of being right, but that's just my opinion.

So what exactly do i believe anyway?

This is what i think....

God created a whole heap of primary animals... like primary colors.

They can mix into other colors over time, but their are limitations.

For example;

Every animal with the ability to fly evolved from and animal 'created' with the ability to fly.
No land animal evolved the ability to fly, but some animals with the ability to fly evolved to lose that ability.

No fish evolved to become a land animal, no land animal evolved to become a fish - (whales and turtles are not fish)

Birds are birds, mammals are mammals, reptiles are reptiles, insects are insects fish are fish, amphibians are amphibians. There is no crossing these lines full stop, (there may be a similar attribute here and there, but its not 'of' that other species) everything else is open season for evolution.

Why the hell God hides his existence? The main reason is faith, but also i like to imagine it is possibly a tiny bit like the 'prime directive' in Star trek. Seems important that the higher being does not interfere too much.

Edit: and are to remain undetected of course.... lucky Angels are better at following the rules than Kirk!! hahahaha

You do realize that your argument is meaningless to someone who doesn't believe in god, right?

I should give a more detailed explanation why i only give 30% chance of this being accurate....

Because our advanced scientific period of time is such a tiny tiny snapshot of time to work with. These processes have been going on millions of years, i mean how can we possibly expect some flash in the pan laboratory experiment to compare with that?

When you first initiate a reaction, its very new and unstable, and is bound to show different results than if you left that reaction going for a million years.... its going to stabilize and then its going to slowly vary fraction by fraction over time

When it comes to rate of decay models, i suspect we would be looking at a depreciating line graph... from a bit higher at first and depreciating over time.... how exactly that line looks we cannot know with such a tiny snapshot in time.

Edit: plus the fact that tiny differences make a huge difference over a long period of time

i mean, in view of above, i think 30% is highly generous.

mebe because its not an argument.

Hence the line;

"so what exactly do i believe"

No. That's not how it works. E.g. Gerbner's cultivation theory, in one of its many forms, is accepted in studies like that, could maybe even be seen as an axiom. Studies like Bègue et al. or Breuer et al. do not aim at 'proving' or 'disproving' it. They investigate whether those effects can be shown under certain, often very specific, circumstances. Under the specific circumstances of the Bègue study, the data strongly suggests that those effects exist, which strengthens the idea of a link between sexist attitudes in men (and women, interestingly) and video game consumption. This particular study also investigated links between religion and sexism and, not surprisingly, the data showed a strong correlation as well.

It's an abstract. It's quite literally the little article the guys who made the study wrote to describe what they did and what the results are. I couldn't get a hold of the full text immediately (which isn't surprising). That means indeed that at the time, I can't personally attribute far reaching validity to this study until I e.g. know exactly what questions the survey encompassed and in what way they were framed towards the persons surveyed (which was one of the problems I personally saw with the Breuer et al. study from 2015 after I eventually got hold of the full text).

There is the crux with the correlation vs. causation again, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless. Frustration collected through tooth grindingly difficult games turn into (physical) forms of violence? Interesting. I mean, that's what common sense says. I could throw my screen at the wall sometimes, I tell you. :)

But then what will you do ten years from now, when your screen IS the wall?

Asking for a friend.

So if proof isn't what is convincing you to endorse these theories, then what is?

And no, some form of proof is needed. What you are saying is that scientists forgo checking the validity of a theory and instead conduct studies based on the assumptions it makes, assuming the theory is correct or is an axiom. It is nothing more than make believe. Given that, I don't doubt they found whatever links they expected to exist.

I'd attribute even less to it considering they decided to not question the theory first before going ahead with the study. What they did was probably close to researching the plague with pre germ-theory medical knowledge. Don't expect to have many takers of this kind of ''science'' that is mostly based on personal hunches.

There's something I've wondered, but never bothered to try and dig up an answer for. If you know anything, mind dropping a pointer?

I understand, more or less, what the half life of a radioactive isotope is (length of time for half the material to change to some other (non-radioactive?) isotope). So figuring out how long it will take a block of uranium to decay is basically a math exercise. Figuring out how much of an isotope was present some x units of time in the past is also, more or less, a math exercise.

The question: Using radioactive decay or carbon dating to estimate age kind of depends on knowing how much of the isotope there was in the first place, right? How can it be used to indicate the age of the planet if we don't know how much "started" here?

As I understand it, the 6k age comes from putting together timelines based off recorded events. If you start tracking ages, dates of death, etc. you can get a sense of how long/when some things occurred.

You're asking how an omnipotent God that could create reality in one configuration would be unable to create it in some other configuration? ;)

What about Patrick Duffy? They always forget Patrick Duffy...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075533/

Simple explanation: It's based on the laws of physics. If the process didn't work the way science says it does, the universe wouldn't be stable enough to continue existing.

It doesn't matter how much overall on the whole planet. What's being measured in any given sample is the ratio of the amount of radioactive element to the amount of its final decay product. That ratio is constant over a given time period no matter how much you started with.

Correction - its based on our current understanding of the laws of physics.

Fact - With every age in the past, our understanding of the laws of physics has changed. (obviously allot of stuff remains true as well)

So why would we be so arrogant to think it wont continue to change in the future?

I would pretty confidently bet my life that in the future they will learn more and change the estimated age of things what they are saying today, i guarantee it.... here it is in writing, come back in 10/20 years and congratulate me!