My girlfriend thinks the earth is 4000 years old

PEOPLE! Carbon-14 is used to date the age of organic materials, like from anthropoligcal digs. It IS NOT USED for long-range measurements estimating the age of the earth!

That said, you say that carbon-dating is flawed? Do you know the definitions of precision and accuracy? You say that evolution is "just a theory"? Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is? I'll give you a hint - scientists use the word theory in a much different way than it's used on the streets.

The level of people's ignorance is down right frightening. As people continue to bury their head in the sand about evolution, real problems that should be discussed are neglected.

'Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000.'

Shut up, Osama. They'll find you!

Scientist, I understand your belief, but there are opposing views to radiometric dating as well;

this for example, in black and white.

yet another one

The fact is, there is no winner or loser in this argument, except the one who refuses to research the other. I've learned about the origination of man by Evolutionists. Most of us have unfortunately. I was interested in disproving Creationism, but found simply too many holes in conventional wisdom. In honesty to myself, researched the other and came to a conclusion.

Let's say 5000 and call it even.

An open mind is good, a gullible one is not.

I greatly appreciate the support and understanding from everyone who has provided it.

I broke up with the girl because she lied (a lie of omission) to me about who she was. I overlooked a lot of her flaws (in answer to deekay's question) because I thought she was someone who could understand me and someone I could learn from.

There was never anything there to begin with, I just thought there was.

----

Scientists believe in evolution because it is the best explaintion we have for understanding the origins and dynamics of life. You have no idea how many times I have heard predictions come true that were based on this theory. I love debating the details about this stuff.

Over time I learned that she had no interest in learning the truth. The only facts she wanted to hear were the ones that corroborated her own world view. She even admitted that her parents raised her to believe blindly in god and government, etc.

----

Basically, I don't think I am being picky at all. I passed over a lot of good potential opportunities when I was with her. She wasted my time and I'm not at all happy about it.

Jeebus guys,

show me where I said that carbon-dating was exact and/or where I said any of you "creationists" are wrong.

Yes, carbon-dating is not accurate enough to determine the how old mother earth is - I never even implied that the opposite might be true. It is however true that carbon-dating is exact well beyond 3000 years.

And to all you guys reacting like I kicked you in the nads when I posted a simple, value-free one-line question:

Thanks for (once again) proving my point - never argue with fundamentalists.

That's what makes scientific method useful - it allows us to adapt to new information. Religious doctrine, less so.

Oh, I tried. She did not enjoy discussing the matter.

I surround myself with people who are very different from me. She wasn't different (from most other people) or oparticularly special and that was my problem.

(She was freaking smart though. Wow. And she could write like no other.)

You didn't understand what I was getting at?

And there are no "fundamental differences of opinion" in your relationship? I am not just talking about evolution vs. creationism here. I find that heard to believe.

You probably did the right thing. It's one thing to have differences of opinion, another to have fundamentally different values. That doesn't make her wrong, it's just reality.

I agree with you Riverfreak, though it's quite possible your head is also buried under the riverbed. The difference in precision and accuracy is quite thin. Precision is repetitious consistency using a varied array of methodology. You may disagree with that assessment, but then your science may not be precise. Accuracy is hit and miss and usually consists of a +/- factor of umpteen thousand years. I'm not sold on either. Methodology requires change contingent upon environment of sample.

I also don't remember saying that carbon-dating was used in determining the overall age of the earth nor dinosaurs though carbon-dating is used in many cases as a "test/control" for specimens as a catalyst in determining precision.

That's cool. I mean if she believed in something so fundamentally stupid and impossible I would do the same. I mean, like if I was dating this totally hot girl who thought reparations were a feasible and practical idea I would drop her like a stone. That's almost as bad a bible-toters.

Well said, zigzag, you beat me to it. The true beauty of "creation-science" is that it doesn't hold itself to the same methodology it attacks.

Very well, I submit the same for you. I don't see how one can write off evolution because carbon-dating is 'flawed.' That seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me, and in any case doesn't constitute a relevant argument against evolution. I don't think On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection mentioned the practice anywhere.

Well okay, but you sure used certain overtones that seemed to invite a debate. But you're right, I do disagree. Evolution is one of the bedrock elements of biology -- I can understand why a biologist would want nothing to do with someone who believes in creationism.

Then why do the anti-religious crowd always start with the attacks?

And no one said carbon-dating was "bogus". It is highly flawed as has been pointed out.

And "value-free" question?!?!

As a matter of fact, yup, I am in a long term relationship. But you're right, I should have qualified my statement. If my significant other believed in something that contradicted my entire belief system and life's work, you'd bet I'd have a problem with that.

In either case, Scientist wasn't in a long term relationship from the sounds of it and I should have mentioned that I was specifically referring to dating... I guess that's what you get when you post in a hurry and aren't precise enough. Notice that I also said 'difficult' and not 'impossible.' To Scientist's credit, it looks like he indeed tried to overcome it but found that she had a closed mind.

And to all you guys reacting like I kicked you in the nads when I posted a simple, value-free one-line question:

Thanks for (once again) proving my point - never argue with fundamentalists.

Above was the reason for breakup. Proof that I, in fact, adhered to and addressed the real intent of the thread. Look bro, you can BS a lot of folks here, but you cannot BS yourself. Not for a very long time anyway. Fun BS'n wit'cha though.

OK, fair enough

I withdraw my statement about you being shallow.

Geology really isn't my field of interest. Even if I dedicated my life to it I don't know if I would be particularly successful at independently verifying/disproving the age of the earth. I'm no chemist... I do know that the earth has to be quite old based on my interest in evolution (which is not at all casual) as well as my personal observations of fossils, erosion, etc. My interest in behavior also makes it quite apparent that the human mind is not well predisposed to scientific thinking. It can be done, but our human prejudices are quite difficult to tame.

Isn't that still brainwashing if you teach them just science and creationism? To be truly objective one would have to expose them to every other religion on earth.

You know, Christianity isn't the only religion worth learning about... even believing in.