Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8103 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-31-2014 7:28 AM
205 online now:
Agingone, edge, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,597 Year: 19,438/28,606 Month: 2,709/2,305 Week: 351/563 Day: 7/108 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
caffeine
Member (Idle past 62 days)
Posts: 872
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 61 of 136 (619235)
06-09-2011 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Pressie
06-09-2011 8:51 AM


Being fair to "Jon Woodromappe"
Pressie writes:

John Woodmorappe refers to Jan Peczkis as a science educator in one of his ‘articles’. He didn’t tell anybody that he referred to himself. Nobody knows what his qualifications are. We just know that he is a ‘science educator’. He certainly is not a geologist. He just calls himself a ‘science educator’.

Jan Peczkis claims to have an MA in Geology from Northeastern Illinois University, and there are two citations on Jstor for someone of that name from the same university, both in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology:

Implications of Body-Mass Estimates for Dinosaurs
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Feb. 15, 1995), pp. 520-533

Trends in the Description of Extinct Genera among Mammalian Orders
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 63, No. 6 (Nov., 1989), pp. 947-950

He's also written well over a thousand book reviews on Amazon.com, assuming there are no shenanigans involved here.

-----------

Who he really is isn't so relevant here, though. The important point should be that "some person says radiometric dating is rubbish" is not a substantive argument. Let's hear some specific explanation of why it's so rubbish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 06-09-2011 8:51 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 12:21 AM caffeine has not yet responded

NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4972
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 62 of 136 (619244)
06-09-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Pressie
06-09-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Pressie writes:

Chuck77 writes:

Geologist John Woodmorappe, …

That’s certainly not true.

Answer's in Creation says that Peczkis has a master's degree in geology. Their website also contains a detailed rebuttal of Woodmorappe's claims related to Noah's Ark and radiometric dating.

quote:

John Woodmorappe is a young earth creation science author specializing in radiometric dating, and issues related to Noah's Ark and the Flood. John Woodmorappe is a pseudonym (a "pen name"). Many have criticized him for this, but I don't see a problem with it. He teaches high school science, and holds a Master's Degree in Geology.

Many of his arguments contain quotes out of context, scientific data out of context, and omissions of key points which would invalidate his arguments.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 06-09-2011 8:51 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 12:13 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4654
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 63 of 136 (619270)
06-09-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.

"John Woodmorappe" is a pen name for a high school teacher.

He knows nothing about dating beyond what he reads in the creationist literature (i.e., lies).

Here are some links that can help you -- if you actually read them:

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.


If you have any questions on radiocarbon dating let me know, as I do a lot of it in my work.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5145
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 64 of 136 (619408)
06-09-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:48 AM


Re: Genesis...
Huh??? Im not sure they EVER carbon dated any dino bones because that would prove they existed recently. they wont do it.

They don't use 14C to date dino bones for the same reason that you don't use a yard stick to measure the width of a human hair. Using the smallest increment on a yard stick you will find that every human hair is 1/8th of an inch across.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:48 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 65 of 136 (619478)
06-10-2011 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 10:08 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
NoNukes writes:

Pressie writes:

Chuck77 writes:

Geologist John Woodmorappe, …

That’s certainly not true.

Answer's in Creation says that Peczkis has a master's degree in geology. Their website also contains a detailed rebuttal of Woodmorappe's claims related to Noah's Ark and radiometric dating.

quote:

John Woodmorappe is a young earth creation science author specializing in radiometric dating, and issues related to Noah's Ark and the Flood. John Woodmorappe is a pseudonym (a "pen name"). Many have criticized him for this, but I don't see a problem with it. He teaches high school science, and holds a Master's Degree in Geology.

Many of his arguments contain quotes out of context, scientific data out of context, and omissions of key points which would invalidate his arguments.


That's interesting. Somebody with a masters in geology teaching high school science? That can only mean that he is way too useless as a geologist for any geological consultant, mining company or geological research organization to employ him. Simply put, he knows too little to be employed as a geologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:08 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 5:36 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 66 of 136 (619479)
06-10-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by caffeine
06-09-2011 9:57 AM


Re: Being fair to "Jon Woodromappe"
caffeine writes:

Jan Peczkis claims to have an MA in Geology from Northeastern Illinois University,…..

What creationists claim to be true is usually miles removed from reality.

caffeine writes:

.. and there are two citations on Jstor for someone of that name from the same university, both in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology:

Implications of Body-Mass Estimates for Dinosaurs
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Feb. 15, 1995), pp. 520-533

Trends in the Description of Extinct Genera among Mammalian Orders
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 63, No. 6 (Nov., 1989), pp. 947-950

So, he claims to be a geologist, while he’s only published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology? Sounds very fishy to me. How does this qualify him to be a ‘specialist’ on dating methods?

caffeine writes:

He's also written well over a thousand book reviews on Amazon.com, assuming there are no shenanigans involved here.

Well, I guess anyone can write book reviews on Amazon.

caffeine writes:

Who he really is isn't so relevant here, though. The important point should be that "some person says radiometric dating is rubbish" is not a substantive argument. Let's hear some specific explanation of why it's so rubbish.

I agree.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by caffeine, posted 06-09-2011 9:57 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 06-06-2011


Message 67 of 136 (619492)
06-10-2011 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by purpledawn
06-09-2011 6:59 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Im sorry purpledawn (again). I'll just take my lumps. Im not a clue really about dating techniques. I shouldn't have brought it up. All i know is you can;t use carbon dating to date in the millions. Im not sure what method they use to date dino bones honestly. I admit it's not a area im familiar with.

As for the other question about how we would know the date of dino's other than the Bible I say let some Creationists date them and see what they come up with. I'll check to see if this has ever happened. Thanks for being patient with me. For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's. Particularly Laurence Tisdall. Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them. I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 6:59 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2011 4:59 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 5:43 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 8:20 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 11:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 4654
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 68 of 136 (619497)
06-10-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
You might check the links on various dating techniques I posted upthread.

You can't use C-14 to date into the millions of years, but that hasn't stopped creationists from dating dinosaur fossils. When they get readings they ignore contamination and other issues and claim proof of a young earth. Pretty silly, eh?

They have also used studies on diamonds to claim that even diamonds have residual C-14, but that was a test of residual carbon and C-14 that builds up in the dating equipment. Diamonds were used because they truly contain no C-14, and this let them establish the "background" for the equipment.

Please check the links I posted and let me know if you have any questions on radiocarbon dating.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 69 of 136 (619501)
06-10-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Pressie
06-10-2011 12:13 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
That's interesting. Somebody with a masters in geology teaching high school science? That can only mean that he is way too useless as a geologist for any geological consultant, mining company or geological research organization to employ him. Simply put, he knows too little to be employed as a geologist.

And that is complete bullshit. I am more than a little more qualified in my discipline than Peczkis is in his, and I have taught at high-school level. Not all "teachers" teach simply because they can't do anything else. Not everyone is driven by pure bottom-line income.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 12:13 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 6:00 AM cavediver has responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 70 of 136 (619505)
06-10-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Chuck77 writes:

Im sorry purpledawn (again). I'll just take my lumps. Im not a clue really about dating techniques.

Then how do you rationalize your questioning of the thousands of geochronologists who actually do know exactly what they are doing?

Chuck77 writes:

I shouldn't have brought it up.

No, your creationists sources indoctrinated you to reject science. That's why you brought it up.

Chuck77 writes:

All i know is you can;t use carbon dating to date in the millions.

That's why real geochronologists don't ever use carbon dating to date dinosaur fossils.

Chuck77 writes:

Im not sure what method they use to date dino bones honestly. I admit it's not a area im familiar with.

Chuck77, you should then start realizing that you can’t trust creationist ‘sources’. They lie. Rather use scientific sources. There's lots of other scientific techniques out there.

Chuck77 writes:

As for the other question about how we would know the date of dino's other than the Bible I say let some Creationists date them and see what they come up with.

Creationists have only one dating ‘technique’. They interperate their specific version of the holy books. Then they call it ‘science’. There is another thread on this website dealing with why creationists should get scientific dating techniques they don’t have at the moment. Before getting a scientific dating technique, they don't do geochronology.

Chuck77 writes:

I'll check to see if this has ever happened. Thanks for being patient with me. For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's.

Why? They keep on lying to you. We pointed them at their lies. Don’t ever believe them without investigating their claims very thoroughly.

Chuck77 writes:

Particularly Laurence Tisdall.

Why do you do this at all? Even according to CreationWiki. http://creationwiki.org/Laurence_Tisdall
Creationwiki writes:


Laurence Tisdall holds a Bachelor's degree in General Agriculture from Macdonald College of McGill University and a Master of Science degree in micropropagation from the same university. He has published several scientific articles in peer reviewed journals, such as HortScience. Mr. Tisdall is presently a computer consultant.

He’s got absolutely no education in scientific dating techniques. Don’t just believe his ‘claims’, as he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Rather listen what those thousands of Geochronologists, who are actually specialists in geological dating, from all over the world, conclude after their research. That ‘s called being rational.

Chuck77 writes:

Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them.

Yes you can. It doesn’t matter how many times you just ignore or deny facts, fossils can be dated.

Chuck77 writes:

I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?

Yes, you can date sedimentary rock. Sometimes it is very easy, other times it is more difficult, but you can date sedimentary rocks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 71 of 136 (619506)
06-10-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by cavediver
06-10-2011 5:36 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
cavediver writes:

That's interesting. Somebody with a masters in geology teaching high school science? That can only mean that he is way too useless as a geologist for any geological consultant, mining company or geological research organization to employ him. Simply put, he knows too little to be employed as a geologist.

And that is complete bullshit. I am more than a little more qualified in my discipline than Peczkis is in his, and I have taught at high-school level. Not all "teachers" teach simply because they can't do anything else. Not everyone is driven by pure bottom-line income.

Sorry, cavediver, if I offended you.

I didn't mean to do it.

The reality of the situation Jan Peczkis is involved in, is that no real geological organization, whether it is in consulting, mining or reseach, would ever emply a reality denier. That's why he works for creationist organizations and works under a different name.

Institutions dealing with geological reality also have to survive in real life. They all have to survive reality.

Jan Peczkis does 'geological' work for 'creation scientists', simply because he doesn't have the knowledge to work for real geological enterprizes. He suppliments his income by trying to indoctrinate children. And it looks good when he can refer to himself as a 'science teacher' or 'geologist' in his 'articles', depending on the audience.

I also agree that a lot of teachers do their jobs for the love of teaching children. But they are real teachers and don't have to revert to lies to indoctrinate the faithful, too. They do really educate children. They do it all under their own names. Not some nom du plum to deceive the faithful.

Edited by Pressie, : Added two words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 5:36 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 6:20 AM Pressie has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 72 of 136 (619508)
06-10-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Pressie
06-10-2011 6:00 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Sorry, cavediver, if I offended you.

It's not so much me, as the irritation I get at the typical "those that can, do; those that can't, teach" attitude and the damage it does to recruitment efforts aimed at employing serious professionals into teaching - I can give countless examples where this is perfectly applicable, but similar countless examples where it is not.

Anyway, apology accepted. Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 6:00 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 6:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 73 of 136 (619512)
06-10-2011 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by cavediver
06-10-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
cavediver writes:

Sorry, cavediver, if I offended you.

It's not so much me, as the irritation I get at the typical "those that can, do; those that can't, teach" attitude and the damage it does to recruitment efforts aimed at employing serious professionals into teaching - I can give countless examples where this is perfectly applicable, but similar countless examples where it is not.

Anyway, apology accepted. Thank you.

Thanks for accepting my apologies.

I work as a full-time geologist at a geological research institute and I also teach part-time at what is called a previously disadvantaged school. I understand your frustration.

In my country teachers are paid a pittance. Usually teachers are paid in peanuts, that's why they get a lot of monkeys doing it.

Those teachers with a passion for teaching, however, who do it for the love of teaching and also for advancing humanity, do deserve all the respect we can give them. There's a lot of them.

I don't think that Jan Peczkis is one of them.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 6:20 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 74 of 136 (619528)
06-10-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Chuck77 writes:

Im sorry purpledawn (again). I'll just take my lumps. Im not a clue really about dating techniques. I shouldn't have brought it up. All i know is you can;t use carbon dating to date in the millions. Im not sure what method they use to date dino bones honestly. I admit it's not a area im familiar with.

As for the other question about how we would know the date of dino's other than the Bible I say let some Creationists date them and see what they come up with. I'll check to see if this has ever happened. Thanks for being patient with me. For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's. Particularly Laurence Tisdall. Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them. I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?

I was actually looking forward to a discussion on John Woodmorappe's 'research' on dating. I could actually learn something, as we do have a few experts on radiometric dating available on this forum. Are you sure you can't give me one of the examples from Woodmorappe's 'research' that we can discuss? Your statement was

Chuck77 writes:

Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.

Can’t we even discuss one example where ‘isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning’? I would love to discuss any example of radiometric dating where Woodmorappe thought the dating methods were circular.

Chuck77, please, let’s discuss some examples of this. It seems like Woodmorappe would never publish his ‘findings’ in peer-reviewed papers, but only in religious tracts where the readers don’t have a clue what he is talking about. Also, he always does it where he knows that no Geochronologist can hear what he says and is able to criticize him. Please, let’s discuss it here. Just give us one example of 'circular reasoning' he writes about.

This is the time to put your money where your mouth is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2785
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 75 of 136 (619530)
06-10-2011 8:30 AM


Although it's been pretty beaten to death already, a few items:

Woodmorappe did not look at 500 papers, he selected 350 dates from a lot fewer than 350 papers. He did not give any indication of how many dates he reviewed to select those 350, so a meaningful statistical analysis is impossible. His claim to have found "Over 300 serious discrepancies..." is laughable. I've read the original paper, and the majority of his "serious discrepancies" are not that at all, they're well-explained and well-understood. Steven H. Schimmrich wrote a critique at TalkOrigins, Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe, which is easily understood by the non-geologist and explains several of the "discrepancies". he concluded that Woodmarappe made many serious errors:


  • Selective quotations from the scientific literature
  • The presentation of data devoid of any geological context
  • Ignoring well-known limitations of dating methods
  • The use of a "shotgun" approach
  • The inclusion of obsolete data
  • The use of a small data set to reach sweeping conclusions
  • The lack of an appropriate audience

Glenn Morton plotted Woodmorrappe's dataset at Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look. measured age against expected age. There's a lot of scatter, as you'd expect when the criterion for data selection is the existence of scatter, but the trend is clear:

Chuck77, it would do you good to reflect on the reliability of your sources.

Woodmorappe's paper is not online, but I have a PDF of it if anyone wants to read it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 8:57 AM JonF has not yet responded

Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014