Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 3 of 36 (563209)
06-03-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
06-03-2010 9:20 PM


Bump for BobTHJ
A continuation of our discussion from the "Kind" thread.
Please support your contention that the decay constant is so variable that it can't be trusted, and is inappropriate as an assumption in radiometric dating.
{Thanks Adminnemooseus}

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-03-2010 9:20 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2010 5:39 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 36 (563394)
06-04-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
06-03-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Bump for BobTHJ
Bump again for Bob.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2010 9:58 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2010 7:49 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 36 (563420)
06-04-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
06-04-2010 7:49 PM


Re: Bump for BobTHJ
He tried the Gish Gallop on us, spewing forth any number of PRATTs. But he has been called on this one.
{Part of message hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2010 7:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2010 8:02 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 8 by hotjer, posted 06-04-2010 8:09 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 06-04-2010 9:24 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 11 of 36 (563643)
06-06-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by glowby
06-06-2010 2:14 AM


Bump for BobTHJ
There are two detailed reviews of their findings available. I have linked to both in my post at the beginning of this thread.
Summary: Their results confirmed what science has concluded, but they refused to believe them. Rather, they prefer to believe that some (undiscovered) process will let things come out the way they want.
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by glowby, posted 06-06-2010 2:14 AM glowby has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 36 (564193)
06-08-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 9:44 PM


RATE Project overview
Other than the helium diffusion in zircons question, what is your estimate of the support which the RATE Project affords a young earth position?
And did the comments we have posted or linked make any change in your position?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:44 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 2:16 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 36 (564917)
06-13-2010 5:24 PM


Bump for Jzyehoshua
Your comments on the Ark thread were off topic, so I'll address a couple of points here instead.
Jzyehoshua writes:
At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off.
We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates.
With these two paragraphs you show that you don't know the first thing about Carbon 14 dating. Given this, why should those of us who do know something about it take anything you say seriously?
First, Carbon 14 dating is not used to measure the age of the earth. It is only useful for about 50,000 years.
Second, Carbon 14 dates are calibrated using tree rings and several other annular measures to account for atmospheric fluctuation. The need for this was described by de Vries (1958), and calibration has been a standard part of the method ever since.
Finally, the creationists' RATE Project, that is the subject of this thread, examined the problem of radioactive decay and found that it was indeed stable for some hundreds of millions of years. They didn't accept their own findings, but that is what their data showed.
Next time, read up on Carbon 14 dating in the scientific literature: those creationist websites are lying to you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 36 (564931)
06-13-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JonF
06-13-2010 7:45 PM


Bump for Jzyehoshua
Good points, JonF.
Jzyehoshua -- you should read this entire thread.
(To get the "Bump for Jzyehoshua" title back.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 06-13-2010 7:45 PM JonF has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 25 of 36 (565099)
06-14-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:20 PM


Another gross mistake
There is a difference between decay rates and atmospheric fluctuations of Carbon 14. They are nowhere close to the same thing.
You really don't know enough about Carbon 14 to be making any statements about it's validity or accuracy, and you have just proved it once again.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:20 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 36 (565106)
06-14-2010 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
Here are some good links that will help you understand the Carbon 14 method a little better.
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Tree Ring and C14 Dating
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.
The last link contains all the articles in the journal Radiocarbon. They are online, and have been for several years. Nothing hidden, and nothing to prevent you from learning about the Carbon 14 method except your own unwillingness.
Edited by Admin, : Add missing close to last anchor tag.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024