Quote from: nakazznicek on August 18, 2014, 05:07:42 PM

Quote from: BADecker on August 18, 2014, 04:49:29 PM

Quote from: nakazznicek on August 18, 2014, 12:10:03 PM

Quote from: BADecker on August 18, 2014, 12:59:57 AM

Scientists don't really have a clue, scientifically, about what happened on earth beyond about 4,500 years ago.

Can you provide any information that supports you?
As fas as i can remember i saw, heard and read pretty much scientific news dating their findings more than 4,5k years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

This Wikipedia article says two basic things.
1. The earth IS so old...
2. We base our findings on radiometric age dating.

Then when you look up "radiometric age dating," you will find out how the dating is done. It is very interesting. It leads you to believe that "they" know what they are talking about. Yet the article is full of suppositions, "if's," that show you that the whole thing is complete guesswork. For example, "... the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas... ." Now, who in the world has ever been out to a supernova to analyze that this is what happened, and that this is how it works? It's a good story. But it is entirely guesswork. There is probably some scientist who has found out that this could not work like this, but his paper on it has been "lost" by the universities that would rather control their "stories" for their own financial benefit rather then the truth, that they don't really know. There are lots of statements like this throughout the article.

What it is, is, a science fiction story that has been built up over a long time, and does seem to have some good evidence behind it.

The most solid dating goes back to where the most ancient city ruins are the ones that are sitting on the base sub-strata, where there is nothing below them. These cities have pottery in them that can be shown by comparisons with pottery in later cities, right up to the present, that the age of the oldest cities is right around 4,500 years old.

This is a whole field of endeavor, with much competition between researchers. It is very interesting, but it is also a many-years study. It includes a form of forensics that separates the "if" people from the "fact" finders.

I read science fiction, too, once in awhile. But I don't cross the fiction with what is know as fact if I can help it.

So you are directing me where it says Earth is old 4.5 billion years, there are pyramids older than yours 4.5k years, and many heritage is older than 4.5 thousand years. I don't get your point there. And if you don't understand how are supernovas and other stars studied in the long distance, parsecs would fit the best, and then you state "who in the world has ever been out to a supernova to analyze that this is what happened, and that this is how it works" I simply have no choice than let you be useful and do some research how it's made, pretty interesting stuf.

Also: Stonehenge, Gobekli Tepe

Sorry for being unclear. The point that I was trying to make is that ALL dating beyond 4,500 years ago, or so, is base on "if" one way or another. "If" isn't fact. "If" is guesswork.