who knows how old Mother Earth really is, truth is I don't care, but I do firmly believe she is over 4.5 billion, carbon dating tells us the dinos where here 65 million and who knows how much time lapsed before them?
You cannot date anything older than about 10,000 years with radiocarbon dating even when you have organic remains, which in the case of dinosaurs we generally do not. We use other methods to date very old fossils.
You do realize, don't you, that 4.5 billion and 65 million are two orders of magnitude apart and can't be meaningfully related in this context?
The earth isn't conscious in that sense. If anyone is going to make a reasonable, educated guess at its age, it's us. We actually know quite a bit about how old things are. They're estimates, true, but we've been refining them over the past few centuries and we can now come fairly close to the real number. We know the number is close because it correlates among a number of different methods and observations.
Sorry, but although I'm in the theist camp here I'm not in the least mystical about geological processes.
that's sad, you say the earth has no consciousness...I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you cannot open your mind or heart to the ideas and believes of others and learn to respect them...and because of this you'll only learn one kind of truth and not the many different truths. The earth is old, but guessing just so you can say 'this is how it is and it can't be any other way' is just plain pathetic...yes we all know the earth is old, but the concept of gaea, now to know how old she is to know something. Also, your talking to someone who collects and studies geology as well as various other sciences, to believe in science and the possiblity of the mythical, that takes guts...so I only ask you respect what I say and think about it before you speak, its the only way you can learn more and gain my respect.
Since when does "respecting" others' beliefs involve actually believing others' beliefs? That's absurd. I've done a lot of living, and I've examined all kinds of beliefs with an open mind. It's presumptive of you to think otherwise.
Why should I respect beliefs? Not all of them are true. Not all of them can be true simultaneously because they're mutually contradicory. It's sloppy thinking to imagine that all of them can be "truth" in any meaningful sense. I can tolerate them just fine. But respect? That's asking too much.
I respect people, but not the things people say if they're foolish. I'm afraid it's too late for you to claim you study geology and "other sciences". If you really did study it, and understood what you studied, you wouldn't have tried to say we can know the age of dinosaur fossils by "carbon dating". That, I'm afraid, is patent nonsense. If you really knew geology, or science in general, you'd know that an estimate based on data is far from a mere guess. I'm not talking about guesswork.
I have to say I'm puzzled by your militant attitude. Why, pray, would I want to gain your respect if facts don't mean anything to you? Why should I give credence to your beliefs when I know for a fact you don't give any to mine? Or for that matter, when you don't even care to be clear on what you're talking about?
What do you mean by "consciousness"? How do you know the personification of the Earth in which you believe has it? How does it show? How is this personification distinct from the Earth itself? (You did draw a distinction.) What makes you think science is a matter of belief? (It isn't.) Do you have any notion of the quantum mechanics that make the device you're reading this on right now possible? Do you honestly think it will stop working if you no longer believe it will? Why are ideas you or someone else simply pluck out of thin air such as "gaea" termed "knowledge", while concrete information about how the world works is "belief"?
I know that "knowlege", "truth", and your so called "concrete ' are all tangible and I know that till this message I had respected you to a point, you lost it all you sad shell of a human. Don't reply to me again, you claim it's too late for me to claim something when its only too late when you've given p on it, also I find it sad and pathetic you can no longer here the earth's song, and because you no longer have honor, respect, or kindness for others, you have no right to speak, good day, I pray that one day you discover that there is more than "Blind truth".
I'll reply where I want, thank you, and I always have the right to speak. So do you.
If by "the earth's song" you mean the innate human reaction to natural wonders, of course I "hear" it, metaphorically. But I don't need to impute consciousness to it to appreciate it. On the other hand, if you believe you're literally hearing something, you may need professional help.
"Too late" means you've already demonstrated your ignorance of the subject, so that any claims that you know something about it cannot be taken seriously. The wonderful thing about ignorance is that it's 100% curable. It's certainly not too late in that sense. I suggest you take the cure.
I note you never bothered telling me what you were talking about. Those questions I asked were (mostly) not rhetorical, but actual solicitations for information. If you can't answer them, this is further evidence of sloppy thinking. It suggests you have these symbols floating around in your head with no referent attached to them. That's fine for mathematics, but it's not so good for talking about the real world.
I'm just going to say that I get aggravated when people say that carbon dating is incorrect because there were a couple of instances where it turned up a wrong date. In fact, no reputable scientist should tell you that it ALWAYS works without fail. In fact, carbon dating is wrong now and again... however, when the ddates are off, scientists normally understand, and don't list the date as fact. It is still accurate far more often than it is not.