Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8778 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 8:43 AM
358 online now:
Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (7 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,286 Year: 20,892/21,208 Month: 1,325/2,326 Week: 661/345 Day: 23/161 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 1601 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 1 of 144 (587346)
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


Hey Everyone.

Long time lurker, first time poster here.

In my local town centre, every wednesday, there are a group of YEC's that place a board and do some drawings showing that evolution is false and all lies and the usual PRATT's. Since I had some spare time lately I thought I would go down and try to debate/talk some sense into them.

Long story short, they brought in a gentleman who has a degree in geography and seems to know a lot about geology. Now unfortunatly the most geology I have ever done was for one year as a wild card course in South Africa about 9 years back so my geology was rusty.

We started having a discussion about the biblical flood and modern geology and he was using all the usual YEC tactics. Dating is flawed, Grand Canyon, etc etc. So instead of him trying to tear apart modern geology I simply asked him this, if all of our radiometric dating techniques are so flawed, wouldn't the YEC's need an independant method of dating (or a few). Wouldn't this strengthen their position that the earth is as young as they say it is? Instead of saying that radiometric dating has supposed flaws, shouldn't they be working on new methods?

His answer was thus, that they already knew the ages of the strata/fossils and so forth from biblical chronology and hence didn't need any new dating methods.

My question is, wouldn't it be correct in assuming that the YEC position would indeed need new, independant dating techniques and if so, have any been modelled? or tested?

Also, he asked me to look at http://biblicalgeology.net/ for any questions I might have, but so far I haven't found anything to discuss YEC dating techniques.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 10-18-2010 2:47 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 10-18-2010 2:58 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-18-2010 2:58 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 10-18-2010 3:04 PM Zubbbra25 has responded
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2010 3:42 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 10-18-2010 6:07 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 14 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 7:25 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 2:16 PM Zubbbra25 has responded
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:11 PM Zubbbra25 has responded
 Message 135 by Chuck77, posted 06-06-2011 1:30 AM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 6:11 AM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3818
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2 of 144 (587357)
10-18-2010 2:22 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques?? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13424
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 144 (587360)
10-18-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


I once sent an email to ICR asking them for their best measurement of the age of the earth. They told me, in no uncertain terms, that it isn't possible to measure the age of the earth (meaning, of course, that there's no method that gives them the answer they want).


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 4 of 144 (587362)
10-18-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


His answer was thus, that they already knew the ages of the strata/fossils and so forth from biblical chronology and hence didn't need any new dating methods.

There's your answer in a nutshell. YEC's and IDers don't need any real world evidence other than what the bible says. There are a couple threads around here to get them to point to ANY experiment that uses their model. The results so far don't look too good for that crowd.

My question is, wouldn't it be correct in assuming that the YEC position would indeed need new, independant dating techniques and if so, have any been modelled? or tested?

Of course. But that would also be assuming they gave a shit about evidence and actually trying to find it in the first place.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29182
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 5 of 144 (587363)
10-18-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


Long story short, they brought in a gentleman who has a degree in geography and seems to know a lot about geology.

Obviously he does not know much about geology and his claim that he does is simply false.

There is no way anyone that really has any knowledge of geology could possible believe the Biblical Flood is factual.

His answer was thus, that they already knew the ages of the strata/fossils and so forth from biblical chronology and hence didn't need any new dating methods.

And that statement is all the evidence needed to show that he is simply a fraud.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12965
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 6 of 144 (587364)
10-18-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


Only the young earthers need new dating techniques (most of the ID crowd are old earthers).

But more importantly they need a GOOD explanation for all the dating methods that produce results they don't like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 3:30 PM PaulK has responded

    
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 1601 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 7 of 144 (587367)
10-18-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
10-18-2010 3:04 PM


Only the young earthers need new dating techniques (most of the ID crowd are old earthers).

But more importantly they need a GOOD explanation for all the dating methods that produce results they don't like.

Well this is what I still don't understand. How can they go around spouting supposed inconsistencies in things like geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology and so on, and yet not provide a shred of evidence to back up their position?

I'm pretty new to the debating of creationists and I know its a futile process, but how can you debate someone about science when they provide no evidence? Yet they can readily refute science that has been shown to work over and over and over again. It boggles my mind!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 10-18-2010 3:04 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 10-18-2010 3:40 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 10-18-2010 3:40 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 10-18-2010 3:45 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2010 3:46 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29182
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 8 of 144 (587368)
10-18-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 3:30 PM


Yet they can readily refute science that has been shown to work over and over and over again.

They don't really refute things, they simply make assertions that they have refuted something.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 3:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12965
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 9 of 144 (587370)
10-18-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 3:30 PM


Because they start with the unshakable assumption that they are right.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 3:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 10 of 144 (587371)
10-18-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


A major problem is that they don't think the same way that we do and that their goals are completely different.

We seek to learn what we can of the real world, whereas they simply want to disprove evolution. Hence such things as evidence and methods of measurement (including dating methods) have importance for us. None of those things are important to creationists, except for how they might be able to use or misuse them or just plain lie about them as a way to disprove evolution -- or at least to cause the unwary to question or doubt evolution and any science that they wish to discredit. We seek to form an integrated understanding of the world, one that is self-consistent, such that everything needs to be enough in agreement or at least not directly contradict each other; eg, physics must agree with astronomy and with chemisty and with biology, etc. They do not seek any such integrated understanding and are quite happy to hold several contradictory positions, just so long as it contradicts evolution and the findings of science that they disagree with.

Here's the case in point where I finally realized that. On a Yahoo forum, a young-earth creationist presented the old PRATT about the amount of sodium in the oceans limiting the age of the oceans to millions of years. Along with educating him on residence times, I asked him why he was trying to argue that the oceans are millions of years when his position is that the earth cannot be any older than 10,000 years. His response was, quoting from memory: "I'm perfectly happy with the oceans only being millions of years old, just so long as they're not billions of years old like sciences says!" That's when the light-bulb went on in my head: they don't care about forming any kind of self-consistent world-view; they only want to disprove evolution (and any other science that gets in their way).

Edited by dwise1, : corrected a couple typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 11 of 144 (587372)
10-18-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 3:30 PM


Well this is what I still don't understand. How can they go around spouting supposed inconsistencies in things like geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology and so on, and yet not provide a shred of evidence to back up their position?

I'm pretty new to the debating of creationists and I know its a futile process, but how can you debate someone about science when they provide no evidence? Yet they can readily refute science that has been shown to work over and over and over again. It boggles my mind!

The most important thing you can learn about creationists (aside from the fact that they only "evidence" they need is their interpretation of the bible) is that it's not about science or scientific evidence. It's about trying to cast doubt on the scientific evidence that they don't like. They set up the invalid dichotomy of either evolution or creationism, then try to show that since evolution doesn't work, this is proof of creationism.

They must adopt this tactic for the simple reason that they don't really understand science, the scientific method, or scientific evidence. There are two main consequences of this fact. One, they don't understand that none of their criticisms are valid. Two, they would be completely unable to build a truly scientific case in support of creationism, even if there were any evidence in support of it.

Unfortunately, most of their audience is equally ignorant about science, so their rhetoric sounds convincing, if not to establish the validity of creationism, at least to cast doubt on the scientific evidence supporting evolution.

If you really want to see a creationist squirm, ask them for evidence in support of creationism. When they start spouting their usual blend of PRATTS against evolution, point out that none of that is proof of creationism and insist for positive proof for creationism. Hopefully, when they turn up empty, this will make an impression on any audience.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 3:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5929
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 12 of 144 (587373)
10-18-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 3:30 PM


Belief vs. evidence
Well this is what I still don't understand. How can they go around spouting supposed inconsistencies in things like geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology and so on, and yet not provide a shred of evidence to back up their position?

It is hard for folks trained in science to grasp this, but religious belief trumps scientific evidence in their minds.

They know the answers already, and if science comes up with answers to the contrary science is just wrong. They don't really care why science is wrong--that's a problem for scientists to figure out.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 3:30 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-19-2010 6:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 144 (587410)
10-18-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


No dating techniques needed...
Zubbbra25 writes:

Wouldn't this strengthen their position that the earth is as young as they say it is? Instead of saying that radiometric dating has supposed flaws, shouldn't they be working on new methods?

No YEC would ever accept that his position needed any strengthening. The Bible genealogy says that the Earth is 6000 years old. Why is confirmation needed? To YEC, if the earth is any substantially amount older than 6000 years old, then the Son of Man never came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.

A Bible friendly scientific dating technique that appeared to support a 6000 year old earth would probably be taken as some kind of Faustian deal that could start spitting out billion year old dates just when its time for some ICR scientist to start his research.

Edited by NoNukes, : check spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by goldrush, posted 03-01-2011 9:47 PM NoNukes has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2702
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 14 of 144 (587423)
10-18-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


sure they can pray over rocks and ask god to tell them the age of the rock. The same can be done whit bones fossils and pottery.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

    
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 1601 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 15 of 144 (587496)
10-19-2010 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
10-18-2010 3:46 PM


Re: Belief vs. evidence
It is hard for folks trained in science to grasp this, but religious belief trumps scientific evidence in their minds.

They know the answers already, and if science comes up with answers to the contrary science is just wrong. They don't really care why science is wrong--that's a problem for scientists to figure out.

I think this is my major problem, having studied science and being a recent science graduate, I can't seem to understand their actions. It seems that these YEC's want creation science to be taught in the science classroom and yet they can't provide any science to back it up. It boggles my mind!

Are there no YEC's on these boards that can try to defend their position with any techniques/methods?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2010 3:46 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by frako, posted 10-19-2010 7:18 AM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 10-19-2010 10:19 AM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2010 10:46 AM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017