Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 10:10 PM
92 online now:
Coyote, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 89 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,290 Year: 28,896/21,208 Month: 962/1,847 Week: 337/475 Day: 102/82 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 121 of 144 (591685)
11-15-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 11:32 PM


Re: Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
For example, true or false; would a global Genesis flood model, factoring in other Genesis data and observeable physical evidence, such as tropical stuff in the arctics, etc, interpreted on that hypothetical model implicate a non-uniform atmosphere and earth surface?

What relevance does this have with respect to dating methodologies? A non-uniform atmosphere or earth surface would not affect U/Pb levels in zircons, as one example. If you think I am wrong then please show how this dating methodology is affected by atmospheric pressure and the earth's surface.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29787
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 122 of 144 (591686)
11-15-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:32 PM


try truth
Buz, I have to point out that you have been shown evidence on numerous occasions that shows beyond any doubt that the pre-flood atmosphere and environmental conditions were very much like the conditions today.

You keep repeating these falsehoods like the flood or the pre-flood atmosphere or the Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan or fulfilled prophecy as though we have not refuted each of them time after time.

So let's deal with your pre-flood crap once again.

Go look at the Oetzi thread and once again it simply shows that your pre-flood premise is simply WRONG!


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 83 days)
Posts: 97
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 123 of 144 (594127)
12-01-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Taq
11-15-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
It is your assertion so it is up to you to evidence it. Please show how this vapor canopy produces the evidence we see, such as the U/Pb ratios we see in zircons or the K/Ar ratios that we see in meteorites.

To further expand on this, Buzsaw would also need to explain how the vapour canopy on the Earth affected the radiometric dating of Lunar rock samples and why oldest crustal samples from both the Earth and the moon give similar ages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 11-15-2010 1:15 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 12-02-2010 11:47 AM Boof has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 124 of 144 (594169)
12-02-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Boof
12-01-2010 9:35 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
To further expand on this, Buzsaw would also need to explain how the vapour canopy on the Earth affected the radiometric dating of Lunar rock samples and why oldest crustal samples from both the Earth and the moon give similar ages.

Not to mention asteroids dating older than both even though they were in the vacuum of space.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Boof, posted 12-01-2010 9:35 PM Boof has not yet responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 125 of 144 (607078)
03-01-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
10-18-2010 6:07 PM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
Actually the Bible puts no specific or approximate age on the earth.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 10-18-2010 6:07 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2011 10:31 PM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2011 11:08 PM goldrush has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 126 of 144 (607086)
03-01-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by goldrush
03-01-2011 9:47 PM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
Actually the Bible puts no specific or approximate age on the earth.

So you accept the age of the earth established by scientists then?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by goldrush, posted 03-01-2011 9:47 PM goldrush has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10124
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 127 of 144 (607093)
03-01-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by goldrush
03-01-2011 9:47 PM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
goldrush writes:

Actually the Bible puts no specific or approximate age on the earth.

You are taking my post out of its intended context.

YEC do interpret the Bible as providing an estimate of the age of the earth. My post was meant to explain why a person holding such a belief would not need or accept dating methods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by goldrush, posted 03-01-2011 9:47 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 03-01-2011 11:13 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 129 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 1:19 AM NoNukes has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 128 of 144 (607094)
03-01-2011 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by NoNukes
03-01-2011 11:08 PM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
it's also wrong. it's just a matter of adding up dates in genealogies and the record of kings, until you get to a point we can verify historically.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2011 11:08 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


(1)
Message 129 of 144 (607106)
03-02-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by NoNukes
03-01-2011 11:08 PM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
Oh, I see. I apologize. It wasn't my goal to invalidate or distract from your point, I was just pointing out that dispite YECs' interpretation or inference, the Bible does not put any date on the earth period. It is dead silent. It's almost off-topic for this particular thread, but I just wanted to make it known that its not actually the Bible itself promoting the idea of either a young or old earth.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2011 11:08 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2011 2:53 AM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 131 by frako, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 AM goldrush has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10124
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 130 of 144 (607108)
03-02-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by goldrush
03-02-2011 1:19 AM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
goldrush writes:

It's almost off-topic for this particular thread, but I just wanted to make it known that its not actually the Bible itself promoting the idea of either a young or old earth.

The Bible cannot promote anything without a promoting human. Are you saying that there is no support in the Bible for the YEC interpretation? I cannot agree with that despite the fact that I think the YEC interpretation is wrong.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 1:19 AM goldrush has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2716
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 131 of 144 (607120)
03-02-2011 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by goldrush
03-02-2011 1:19 AM


Re: No dating techniques needed...

Oh, I see. I apologize. It wasn't my goal to invalidate or distract from your point, I was just pointing out that dispite YECs' interpretation or inference, the Bible does not put any date on the earth period. It is dead silent. It's almost off-topic for this particular thread, but I just wanted to make it known that its not actually the Bible itself promoting the idea of either a young or old earth.

Well not directly but they arrived at that date indirectly this guy lived for so long then this guy the son of that guy for so long thy added up the dates and came to the conclusion that the earth is 5800 years old.

so either the bible is wrong on its genealogy or the whole of science is wrong my bet is on the bible is just wrong on tones of stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 1:19 AM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 9:12 AM frako has not yet responded

    
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


(1)
Message 132 of 144 (607134)
03-02-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by frako
03-02-2011 7:34 AM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
YECs' age of the earth does not prove the Bible wrong. It is possible for a Christian or person to believe in creation without ascribing a particular age to the earth since the Bible gives no age, so a believer in creation does not necessarily need a dating technique. The fact YECs age (which is actually not Biblical) contradicts scientific understanding also does not prove science is correct. Scientific understanding is constantly growing and changing. As soon as we think we figured something out scientifically we discover a factor we never thought about or didn't know to think about. We have acheived great things through science, but our technology and medicines aren't perfect. They often create unforeseen problems with their solutions b/c people don't know what they don't know, and science does not give us any real ability to forsee all consequences. Scientists never work with full knowledge and data, only partial knowledge and data. We have a long way to go knowledgewise. How can one put full trust and dependence on the never-ending process and progress of science?

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by frako, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Woodsy, posted 03-02-2011 9:37 AM goldrush has responded

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 133 of 144 (607137)
03-02-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by goldrush
03-02-2011 9:12 AM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
Because there is nothing else around in which one can put such trust.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 9:12 AM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 9:40 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 134 of 144 (607139)
03-02-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Woodsy
03-02-2011 9:37 AM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
That is your opinion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Woodsy, posted 03-02-2011 9:37 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 144 (618754)
06-06-2011 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


ID and age of earth
Stephen Meyers is one of the most prominant ID'ers out there and he believes in an old earth. The point of ID is to simply SHOW design. It had NOTHING to do with the age of the earth. It's not an important issude when it comes to ID.
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 136 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2011 2:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 06-06-2011 6:01 PM Chuck77 has responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
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