Fossils point to oldest life on earth.

Originally posted by Mindship
As far as I know, there are no other methods.

My point exactly.

note: Someone missed the sarcasm in the original question posed.😉

Originally posted by Mindship
In any event: any single radiometric method, by itself, might be questionable. As such, scientists will often use several independent radiometric dating methods to minimize error. This multiple approach has shown high correlation and is widely accepted.

Is it perfect? Heck, what is? Like Science itself, it is the best "as if" we currently have.

So basically what you mean is..

Originally posted by Normal Guy
...most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture.

Still, I do appreciate you putting it in more detailed wording.😉

Originally posted by PVS
*the distant thumping of a bible grows increasingly louder*

Not sure why, but when I read that, I pictured the scene from King Kong (either one) when the islanders where beating their drums and dancing around except Kong had the face of Jesus when he came bursting through the jungle canopy... Weird.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
From what I've read on the subject, most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture.

So is everything in science. There is no such thing as scientific fact. Does that mean it doesn't work? No, it's still the best method we have for explaining natural phenomena. All it means is that you can never completely prove anything. Gravity exists everywhere we've looked, but how do we know that there isn't some point in the Universe, or some point in time, in which it doesn't/didn't?

You can't disprove something in science by saying, "Well, that's just conjecture", because if you're going to be anal about it, everything is that way.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
You can't disprove something in science by saying, "Well, that's just conjecture", because if you're going to be anal about it, everything is that way.

Sure you can. It says so in the Bible.

But, then again, it also says that you have to give your first born child to god...so that may not be a legitimate source.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
So basically what you mean is..

...most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture

You missed the element of degree.

Intelligent Design, for example, is also speculation and conjecture. But unlike Science, it does not make successful predictions about the physical universe. It does not fit with the data as collected by Science, data which has proven far more reliable when applied to the world around us.

Originally posted by Mindship
You missed the element of degree.

No, he missed the element of enlightenment. But, what can we expect from Whob? Not only did the original 3 billion years occur, but neither did the last 2000.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Sure you can. It says so in the Bible.

But, then again, it also says that you have to give your first born child to god...so that may not be a legitimate source.

Though I do agree with you, that's a slippery slop you play on. Because, anything in the bible can be taken many ways, it all about how one interprets it. I.E., what did God really mean when [he] said 'give your first born'... I've debated with pig-headed religious types many times, the intrepret part is their easy access backdoor exit.

Originally posted by Robtard
Though I do agree with you, that's a slippery slop you play on. Because, anything in the bible can be taken many ways, it all about how one interprets it. I.E., what did God really mean when [he] said '[B]give your first born'... I've debated with pig-headed religious types many times, the intrepret part is their easy access backdoor exit. [/B]

Some one has misunderstood the meaning of sarcasm. Unless that too needs the approval of baby Jesus?

Try debating a moron fother-son team in the parking lot outside your best friends chosen club. Then, you get to see people wriggle.

I've never seen two people wriggle so much, as I have two mormons presented with fact.

Logic was given to us by God, only to test our faith...

*runs away*

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Logic was given to us by God, only to test our faith...

*runs away*

Logic is a personal belief, just like morals.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Logic is a personal belief, just like morals.

Aye.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Some one has misunderstood the meaning of sarcasm. Unless that too needs the approval of baby Jesus?

Try debating a moron fother-son team in the parking lot outside your best friends chosen club. Then, you get to see people wriggle.

I've never seen two people wriggle so much, as I have two mormons presented with fact.

Lol, Mormoms are a special breed onto themselves. I always invite them in and lets the questions fly. It's great fun.

Facts are a point of view.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure why, but when I read that, I pictured the scene from King Kong (either one) when the islanders where beating their drums and dancing around except Kong had the face of Jesus when he came bursting through the jungle canopy... Weird.

Really , I thought of Lord of the rings...

Except replacing Goblins with Christians and the Balrog with a giant Jesus.....

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Facts are a point of view.

Did I not just say that?

When did facts become a point of view... ?
(Or am I missing something here?)

Originally posted by The Omega
When did facts become a point of view... ?
(Or am I missing something here?)

When the person intrepreting them does so to support their own perspective. Kinda like the glass is half full or half empty.