Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 6:12 AM
149 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 145 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,918 Year: 27,524/21,208 Month: 1,437/1,714 Week: 280/365 Day: 7/42 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 107 of 194 (671428)
08-24-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by David Carroll
08-24-2012 9:12 PM


Re: Philosophy?? Physics not metaphysics
Well, it's always possible to conjecture anything. We can certainly imagine that the Earth is young and that God did a series of miracles the cumulative effect of which was to fake the appearance of age.

Or indeed if it better suited our religion we could imagine that the Earth is trillions of years old, but God did a series of miracles to make it look younger than it actually is.

All we can do --- all scientists can do --- is report on the age of the Earth if the Earth is not a lie. If it is, and if the lie was constructed by an omnipotent being, then there would be nothing to say about that except that he has successfully deceived us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 9:12 PM David Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by David Carroll, posted 08-25-2012 12:51 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
David Carroll
Junior Member (Idle past 1827 days)
Posts: 12
From: Fairmont, West Virginia, USA
Joined: 08-22-2012


Message 108 of 194 (671434)
08-25-2012 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
08-24-2012 11:55 PM


Re: Philosophy?? Physics not metaphysics
Good point, Dr. Adequate. This is why, if I can, I try to find hypotheses that would involve no deceiving on God's part but perhaps previous misunderstandings on our part.

I'm a Christian, yes. But I'm not wholeheartedly devoted either to uniformity/naturalism or to strict Creationism (whether of the Young Orb or Young Universe, or mid-life Spaghetti Monster, or whatever kind). I can go either way, philosophically. This is why I'd like to believe that I'm pretty objective about the matter than otherwise would be. There are reasons why strict Creationism is emotionally attractive to me and there are reasons why a hands-off God (scientifically) is emotionally attractive to me. But considering that accepting Creationism is much more intellectually taxing (even if only because of the availability of information from the one viewpoint and a dearth of information from the other viewpoint), I try to sustain this one in my mind....both because it is intellectually challenging, and therefore satisfying, to do so and because Creationist arguments necessarily imply the opposite as their counter-arguments (to study Creationism, given our current pedagogical/political milieu, is automatically to study the other arguments too - unless one is dealing with backward, intolerant fundies - whereas to study the "Other Side" doesn't necessarily imply a study of Creationism).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2012 11:55 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 109 of 194 (683599)
12-12-2012 1:38 AM


Bump for morningstar2008
morningstar2008 seems to be looking for a radiocarbon dating topic, and this seems to be as good as any.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that©.

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 43
From: Екатеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 110 of 194 (683865)
12-14-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
04-19-2010 10:07 AM


Calibrated Thinker writes:
What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today.

I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate.

I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.
By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits.

The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.
It is the interpretation that dictates the result. ...

Go for it, the dialogue could hopefully prove to be stimulating.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by morningstar2008, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2010 10:07 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 8:16 AM morningstar2008 has responded
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2012 8:55 AM morningstar2008 has not yet responded
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2012 3:05 PM morningstar2008 has not yet responded
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2012 6:04 PM morningstar2008 has not yet responded
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2012 11:04 PM morningstar2008 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16172
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 111 of 194 (683867)
12-14-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 8:06 AM


Hi MorningStar2008, two questions:

  1. What exactly is your problem with radiocarbon dating, besides that you reject it?

  2. What language is that at the bottom of your posts?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 8:06 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Panda, posted 12-14-2012 8:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 114 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 9:13 AM Percy has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 112 of 194 (683871)
12-14-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
12-14-2012 8:16 AM


Percy writes:

What exactly is your problem with radiocarbon dating, besides that you reject it?


That is a bold assumption, considering you cannot even identify the language Morningstar is using.

(I think you have got confused by his poor quoting/formatting.)


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 8:16 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 113 of 194 (683872)
12-14-2012 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 8:06 AM


Dating
What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today.

RAZD has a couple of threads on the correlations among the various dating techniques. Your question is answered in detail there. Here is a link to one:

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=6288

I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate.

There is no debate. Instead we have creationists denying a branch of science because they choose to believe old tribal myths instead of the evidence all around them.

I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.
By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits.

Coal and all the rest of the ancient-age explanations for the flood are nonsense. Biblical scholars place the flood some 4,350 years ago, during historic times. Attempts to place the flood during the Permian, at the K-T boundary and all sorts of other silly places is a sign of desperation on the part of creationists. What that is really saying is that evidence of a flood couldn't be found where it was supposed to be, 4,350 years ago.

The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.
It is the interpretation that dictates the result. ...

Science forms an interlocking picture of the world around us. In order to overturn this model, you have to come up with an equally explanatory alternative. You don't get to cherry pick little factoids here and there.

The easiest explanation for your sticks and leaves is that they really are as old as the dates show, whether you want to accept that or not.

By the way, radiocarbon dating--the subject of this thread--only extends back about 50,000 years into the past. You are mistakenly including other forms of radiometric dating in your post.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 8:06 AM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

  
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 43
From: Екатеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 114 of 194 (683876)
12-14-2012 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
12-14-2012 8:16 AM


Percy здравствуйте.

Какая все таки не совершенная у нас техника перевода.
------------------------------
Percy What language is that at the bottom of your posts?
-------------------------------
Вы наверное хотели спросить на каком языке я изъясняюсь.
Я Russian
---------------------------------
Percy What exactly is your problem with radiocarbon dating, besides that you reject it?
---------------------------------
Теперь о главном. понятно что аргументы палочек и листочков поданные господином Calibrated Thinker не служат 100% аргументом. Мало ли как они туда попали. Но есть Message 339 http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=1340&mpp=15... я писал как отступала вода. данный контекст к тому же можно отнести и последовательности при которой шла эволюционная раскрутка датирования. Но это так же в грубом так сказать исчислении. Но тем не менее уголь при такой постановке к нам располагается ближе всех. Но если детальней то видимо нужно еще потратить годы что бы расставить все по своим местам. Нужно найти виновника запечатывания в уголь и в мел в том числе. есть еще известняки. Ему так же нужно уделить некоторое внимание. А виновники как мне думается это глобальные катастрофы которые в свою очередь еще и жутко меняли фасад планеты. Так что и по фасаду тоже не грех пробежаться. Я не знаю как в кратком изложении описать все названые определения. Я думаю самое малое это том в несколько изданий. Которые затаились где то в голове и их от туда еще нужно извлечь. Хотя русскому правительству такие проблемы не нужны. Вот я и пришел сюда. Надеюсь что по адресу.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 8:16 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 9:25 AM morningstar2008 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16172
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 115 of 194 (683879)
12-14-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 9:13 AM


morningstar2008 writes:

Percy What language is that at the bottom of your posts?
-------------------------------
Вы наверное хотели спросить на каком языке я изъясняюсь.
Я Russian

Google Translate doesn't recognize your message as Russian, plus your text doesn't look like Russian. Russian looks like this:

Какой язык является то, что в нижней части вашего сообщения?

Or maybe you're having character set problems?

Since translators don't recognize the language you're using I have no idea what you wrote, and in any event, on this board we use English.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 9:13 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 10:43 AM Percy has responded
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2012 5:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 43
From: Екатеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 116 of 194 (683887)
12-14-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
12-14-2012 9:25 AM


Or maybe you're having character set problems?

Since translators don't recognize the language you're using I have no idea what you wrote, and in any event, on this board we use English.
_________________________
Очень даже может быть но мой набор символов созвучен тому чему учила меня моя мамака. А она говорит что она Russian чистых кровей.
Но я думаю что скоро я эту проблему смогу решить я дал объявление на качественного переводчика.
Конечно если таковой существует. В противном случае языковой барьер между нашим общением конечно убрать будет проблематично.
Но в любом случае Вы правильно поняли что у меня есть именно претензии к радиоуглеродному датированию. А это я полагаю уже великий прогресс в нашем общении.

Надеюсь и в дальнейшем мы так же хорошо будем понимать друг друга.

Edited by morningstar2008, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 9:25 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 10:58 AM morningstar2008 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16172
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 117 of 194 (683888)
12-14-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 10:43 AM


Hi MorningStar,

We already know you understand English, so now you're just being trollish. Please respond in English.

Coal layers are not dated using radiocarbon dating. Are there any specific problems with radiocarbon dating you'd like to describe?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 10:43 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 2:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 43
From: Екатеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 118 of 194 (683925)
12-14-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
12-14-2012 10:58 AM


Of course I understand. Still, the translator of any moves. Though with the mrakobesnymi distortion. And I certainly understand what you asked me about whether I have a decision about dating. Of course, I have an option. But if I now without preparation you'll post it, you'll find me for a madman. On this, I gave you for only the direction of preparation, namely the link where I explained the movement of water and the possible reasons for this movement.
I want to convey to your ear that is logically equivalent, and this is something where water naturally begins to be born there. I hope this fact nor who would refute. Take the first time charcoal and chalk. The coal seams lie below the chalk. And if you have read my link Message 339 http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=1340&mpp=15... where I explained that water flows down into the cracks and crevices. The old reservoirs are drying up. It follows that Mel was dry at a younger age. But that's why carbon dating method that does not see, I cannot say. Well, except for one option. Mel defies aging. He was among the causes will look always young and sensibly. (A) coal did not pass the handle that was Mel.
But while I can't explain. This I can make a mistake. You have to understand me. Russian Science never was at a height. The whole world knows this. They only pretend that everything is wonderful, but the only that can it look what Uncle Sam will propose http://static.newsland.ru/news_images/884/884292.jpg All great discoveries were made not in Russia. Tips only skillfully copied world achievements.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.0/0_8000d_eaab117d_XXL.jpg

Edited by morningstar2008, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 10:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by morningstar2008, posted 12-15-2012 8:55 PM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10069
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 119 of 194 (683928)
12-14-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 8:06 AM


I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale.

Probably no point in asking this, but what kind of evidence for anything on a planetary scale could you possible see in Australia?

ABE:

Obviously if something happened on a global scale, then it also happened in Australia, but what would constitute evidence that something seen in Australia alone was a planet wide event?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 8:06 AM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Panda, posted 12-14-2012 5:41 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 120 of 194 (683967)
12-14-2012 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
12-14-2012 9:25 AM


text gibberish
Hi Percy

Percy What language is that at the bottom of your posts?

I took that stuff to be text character sets that appear on morningstar2008's text translator as russian. Not having access to his\her translator program means we see the background ascii text.

Presumably, "Екатеринбург" is the ascii text from the translation program for the russian word for Australia ... and that might make a fun start for attempting to decode the other text ... if one were really interested.

The bigger problem I have is with the syntax and paragraph breaks.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : aussi


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 12-14-2012 9:25 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 121 of 194 (683969)
12-14-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by NoNukes
12-14-2012 3:05 PM


NN writes:

Probably no point in asking this, but what kind of evidence for anything on a planetary scale could you possible see in Australia?


You've made the same mistake as Percy.
The statement you are asking about is from Coyote's opening post and is actually authored by Calibrated Thinker.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2012 3:05 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017