Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Walt Brown's super-tectonics
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 307 (82750)
02-03-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 5:14 PM


Well, again, scientists aren't an Elect. Anyone can play. If you have better ideas that explain the data, fire away ...
I like that thinking!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 5:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 287 of 307 (82752)
02-03-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by simple
02-03-2004 5:03 PM


simple writes:
I've read many cases where the results were comically way off in dates. The whole method has been 'caught' a good number of times! Busted.
I ask you again: Who was caught? When? By whom?
You listed I presume some bigwigs involved in the dating process, as if I meant they were fraudulent.
They're anonymous researchers.
So, regardless of one's name, or job, there has been errors.
Name a process involving people not fraught with error, including this one. The way you eliminate error is through the gathering of evidence and through replication.
My other points still stand. If you're right that the dates are off by 4.5 billion years, then much of science as we know it is false, and most scientists must be in on the conspiracy. You're not thinking through the ridiculous implications of your position.
Please back up your claims about dating fraud with evidence. Who did it? When? Who caught them?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:03 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 9:24 PM Percy has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 288 of 307 (82755)
02-03-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by simple
02-03-2004 5:23 PM


As far as the 2 billion year thing, why would one say that?
I would say that because we can see supernovae that are two billion light years away, and thus that old. Their light decay curves are powered by the radioactive decay of nickel. The half-life you get from observing them is identical to what you can measure in the lab.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:23 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:43 PM Coragyps has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 307 (82756)
02-03-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 5:10 PM


You'll have to show some evidence of radiometric dating returning bad results even after the technique was used correctly
So even after they screw up I need to go back and give the poor guys a second chance? Even though the information I received was very wrong and would have resulted in a fatal flaw in any conclusion, or verdict I might have rendered! I should go back, and bend over, and take the guys updated, new and improved opinion as fact? Even if we were to accept his peers work, were we there a billion years ago? How could one prove they were, or it was? likewise how could we disprove it? As someone asked, I think me to do.? yes we can all have a beer and agree that there's a decay we can measure, even if sometimes the measurements are obviously fiction. My problem comes with the time aspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by JonF, posted 02-03-2004 5:40 PM simple has replied
 Message 291 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 5:41 PM simple has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 290 of 307 (82757)
02-03-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by simple
02-03-2004 5:33 PM


So even after they screw up I need to go back and give the poor guys a second chance?
You have an awfully strange standard, and it's obviously double. Do you think that a very few mistakes are enough to invalidate tens of thousands of correct answers? (And there have been very few mistakes; most of the problems you have heard about are purposeful "errors" specifically designed and/or misrepresented to try to besmirch real science).
Do you hold Walt Brown and Kent Hovind to the same standsard? Does one error invlidarte everything they say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:33 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 9:56 PM JonF has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 291 of 307 (82758)
02-03-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by simple
02-03-2004 5:33 PM


So even after they screw up I need to go back and give the poor guys a second chance?
No, you need to go back and give the other guys - the ones who didn't screw it up - a first chance. Why is it their fault if some other boob, totally unrelated to what they're doing, can't read instructions?
You seem to be overlooking the fact that radiometric dating is a popular technique - it's actually several techniques based on the same physics, by the way - used by many, independantly operating groups. The fact that one or two of them can't follow instructions is hardly evidence that the instructions themselves are bogus.
Your criticism of radiometric dating is utterly nonsensical. Dating is a technique. It gives weird dates when you do it wrong. It gives very accurate dates when you do it right. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that.
Even if we were to accept his peers work, were we there a billion years ago?
No, but the stuff we're dating was. And the farther we look in space the further back in time we're looking, so we can even see what it was like a billion years ago - we just can't see what it was like here.
My problem comes with the time aspect.
Because it doesn't agree with the Bible, we know. Unfortunately that's not a valid reason to reject a scientific claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:33 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 10:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 307 (82759)
02-03-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Coragyps
02-03-2004 5:33 PM


..I would say that because we can see supernovae that are two billion light years away, and thus that old. Their light decay curves are powered by the radioactive decay of nickel. The half-life you get from observing them is identical to what you can measure in the lab.
Two billion light years away? Therein lies a good portion of why it ain't so. Why would one assume that distance? Now, are you positive it's nickel powering a light curve? You now, people used to think a rainbow up in the sky was an arch! Tell you what, take your lab 2 billion miles for a closer look, then let me know how your guesswork turned out!
I won't be able to entertain folks at the forum here for a few hours. So some replies may look good for a while. I may peek in later and question authority a little more. So far Walt's theory is looking better, when I see the stuff posters have so far come up with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Coragyps, posted 02-03-2004 5:33 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by wj, posted 02-03-2004 5:51 PM simple has not replied
 Message 294 by Admin, posted 02-03-2004 6:17 PM simple has replied
 Message 302 by Coragyps, posted 02-03-2004 10:01 PM simple has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 307 (82763)
02-03-2004 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by simple
02-03-2004 5:43 PM


Aren't people sick of feeding the troll?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:43 PM simple has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 294 of 307 (82776)
02-03-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by simple
02-03-2004 5:43 PM


Hi, Simple!
Just thought I'd check if I had your attention before I say anything further. Please respond.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:43 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 9:53 PM Admin has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 295 of 307 (82840)
02-03-2004 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by simple
02-03-2004 5:19 PM


Re: flood fighting
quote:
Apparently Walt doesn't agree! Could it be two plus four that they thought was 2 + 2? I think Walt believes there were reversals, but that they happened quickly in the flood period. So, if this data you brought up would lead one to accept millions of years in age I would say it need a new look. If not, I don't much care!
JM: I know Walt does not agree, but that's because Walt does not understand. Can you show me specifically where Walt claims that reversals do happen? All I could find was a misrepresentation of two studies by Coe and colleagues. You are quite flippant in your dismissal of modern science, yet you've not backed many (if any) of your claims with scientific data. I'm quite happy to concede that you prefer dogma to discovery; however, if you decide engage in something more than a handwave I'd be happy to discuss further. For example, perhaps you'd like to explain the evidence for rapid reversals? Perhaps you'd like to explain how decay rates sped up many fold without melting the earth many times over? Are you willing to defend your ideas with scientific data or are you just here to make pretend arguments?
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 5:19 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 9:52 PM Joe Meert has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 307 (82863)
02-03-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Percy
02-03-2004 5:25 PM


If you're right that the dates are off by 4.5 billion years, then much of science as we know it is false..
Yes amazing isn't it! Pity the so called science 'house' was built on the sand of false assumptions!
I ask you again: Who was caught? When? By whom?
Walt's book says "..in more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled)the...ages were at least one geologic age in error-..." Need we dredge up more. of which your opinion will probably be similar? Hmm, seems the methods are less than perfect, didn't some pyshics claim around a 70 % success rate? Seems Walt says about 50% of those checked were way way off! ha
..They're anonymous researchers
Oh, OK I thought since so many names were included in the list, they perhaps were people of some weight, and not jusy anonymous! But, as you wish I'll pretend I never gave a passing glance to their names!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Percy, posted 02-03-2004 5:25 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by edge, posted 02-03-2004 9:55 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 307 (82871)
02-03-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Joe Meert
02-03-2004 8:06 PM


Re: flood fighting
..For example, perhaps you'd like to explain the evidence for rapid reversals? Perhaps you'd like to explain how decay rates sped up many fold without melting the earth many times over?
I thought I said I agreed with decay rates? Where I would question results, is where a world recent flood, and different conditions would not be taken into account, such as more or less carbon, water etc. which I am told would affect a carbon dating? No? Now ladies and gentlemen, a word from..Walt! "..To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume the dating clock has operated at a known rate, the clock’s initial setting is known, and the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid. ....A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This huge, critical, and untestable assumption is made, even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.a Furthermore, two lines of evidence suggest radioactive decay was once much greater than it is today. ...
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to blind tests. a In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in errorindicating major errors in methodology. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error. " !
and here's more Walt -- .."Although textbooks show these so-called reversals as smooth bands paralleling the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, there is nothing smooth about them. Some bands even run perpendicular to the ridge axisthe opposite of what plate tectonics predicts. Also, the perpendicular bands correspond to fracture zones.8 The hydroplate theory will explain these magnetic anomalies.
On the continents, rapid but limited changes in earth’s magnetic field have occurred. Lava cools at known rates, from the outside of the flow toward its center. Magnetic particles floating in lava align themselves with the earth’s magnetic field. When the lava cools and solidifies, that orientation becomes fixed. Knowing this cooling rate and measuring the changing direction of the magnetic fields throughout several solidified lava flows, we can see that at one time the earth’s magnetic field changed rapidlyup to 6 degrees per day for several days.9
Submarine Canyons. The ocean floor has several hundred canyons, some of which exceed the Grand Canyon in both length and depth. One submarine canyon is three times deeper than the Grand Canyon. Another is ten times longer (2,300 miles), so long it would stretch nearly across the United States. Most of these V-shaped canyons are extensions of major rivers. Examples include the Amazon Canyon, Hudson Canyon, Ganges Canyon, Congo Canyon, and Indus Canyon. What could gouge out canyons 15,000 feet below sea level? Perhaps ancient rivers cut these canyons when the ocean floor was higher or sea level was lower. If so, how did that happen? Swift rivers supposedly cut most continental canyons. However, currents measured in submarine canyons are much too slow, generally less than one mile per hour. Frequently, the flow is in the wrong direction. Submarine landslides or currents of dense, muddy water sometimes occur. However, they would not form long, branching patterns that characterize river systems and submarine canyons. Furthermore, experiments with thick, muddy water in submarine canyons have not demonstrated any canyon-cutting ability "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Joe Meert, posted 02-03-2004 8:06 PM Joe Meert has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 307 (82872)
02-03-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Admin
02-03-2004 6:17 PM


hi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Admin, posted 02-03-2004 6:17 PM Admin has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 299 of 307 (82875)
02-03-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by simple
02-03-2004 9:24 PM


quote:
If you're right that the dates are off by 4.5 billion years, then much of science as we know it is false..
Yes amazing isn't it! Pity the so called science 'house' was built on the sand of false assumptions!
Yes, amazing that no one noticed until some YECs came along!
quote:
I ask you again: Who was caught? When? By whom?
Walt's book says "..in more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled)the...ages were at least one geologic age in error-..." Need we dredge up more.
What do you mean? You haven't dredged up one yet...
quote:
of which your opinion will probably be similar? Hmm, seems the methods are less than perfect,
Ah, I see, it has to be perfect for you.
quote:
didn't some pyshics claim around a 70 % success rate?
I don't know. First, define pyshics.
quote:
Seems Walt says about 50% of those checked were way way off! ha
Yep. According to Walt that is. Walt is wrong. So, what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 9:24 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 10:00 PM edge has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 307 (82876)
02-03-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by JonF
02-03-2004 5:40 PM


You have an awfully strange standard, and it's obviously double. Do you think that a very few mistakes are enough to invalidate tens of thousands of correct answers?
take the good, I'd say, out with the bad. Millions or billions is bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by JonF, posted 02-03-2004 5:40 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Coragyps, posted 02-03-2004 10:04 PM simple has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024