Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 222 (827232)
01-21-2018 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-10-2016 10:50 AM


Questions
What is the formula used to determine the age of materials? And what are the constant variables?
Thanks
DOCJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-10-2016 10:50 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2018 10:40 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2018 10:41 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 01-21-2018 11:28 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 222 (827272)
01-21-2018 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
01-21-2018 11:28 AM


Re: Questions
What assumptions are geologists making when dating rocks, etc? I'm wanting to find out the issues. It's just a matter of if one of you are going to provide them. I'm looking at the information and a few of the assumptions I'm seeing are how much daughter product was in the sample, how much parent was in the sample, that their model of gravitational physics is true, and I'm sure there are some inside the formula such as constant variables..
Thanks for all the information.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😊

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 01-21-2018 11:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-21-2018 10:25 PM DOCJ has replied
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 8:58 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 01-22-2018 4:05 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 222 (827330)
01-22-2018 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by edge
01-21-2018 10:25 PM


Re: Questions
I'm merely interested in the truth about dating methods. The age debate wouldn't refute my faith because it is adaptable. I generally view conventional science as a out dated way of thinking. I don't think all of the views are accurate in describing the universe. I'm just interested in the truth. In interpreting your response, it does seem as if you do not care about the accuracy of dating. It's as if you are fine with whatever. Which is fine but I'm more interested with the truth. And if you represent the main way of thinking I can definitely see why there is a debate. Christians who are in seek mode are looking to conclude in truth not on bias with regards to dating. If your attitude is a standard within the geology field, it's not a good thing. Every detail should matter, anchoring is unhealthy. FYI: I believe in the electrical model of the universe, birkeland currents, plasma physics, and accept gravitational physics as a weak force. Essentially the birkeland current would develop a universe that changes the composition of material, and the like due to the electrical current that would connect everything in the universe. There is absolutely no way to determine with out a doubt the age of the universe or the earth with conventional methods.
Electricverse
Electric Sun
NoBB
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-21-2018 10:25 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2018 10:52 PM DOCJ has replied
 Message 77 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2018 3:56 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2018 8:12 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 9:56 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 11:09 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 222 (827338)
01-23-2018 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by JonF
01-22-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Questions
I think the wording you prefer doesn't change the issue. There is plenty of evidence electric currents flow in the cosmos, and electric discharge will effect radioactive clocks.
Link
Link 2
Link 3
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : 😉

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by JonF, posted 01-22-2018 3:57 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2018 5:38 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 80 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2018 6:00 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 93 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 9:12 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 222 (827341)
01-23-2018 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
01-23-2018 5:38 AM


Re: Questions
3 links provided

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2018 5:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2018 6:12 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2018 6:31 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2018 7:52 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 222 (827344)
01-23-2018 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Pressie
01-23-2018 6:00 AM


Re: Questions
You don't know that. Inflation within a big bang model has only circumstantial evidence. Redshift and the CMBR are circumstantial evidence to a big bang model per Lemaitre. It's a presumption that red shift is proof of distance and also that the CMBR is a proof of the size of the universe. Links provided in a previous post regarding the EU and some are below.
Inflation
WMAP
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : 😂😂
Edited by DOCJ, : 🤣
Edited by DOCJ, : Edited after the conversation in order to clarify the points being argued
Edited by DOCJ, : More clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2018 6:00 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 6:59 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 222 (827354)
01-23-2018 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
01-23-2018 6:59 AM


Re: Questions
My goal of providing a alternative valid narrative is providing truth (more data) AND in which not a single contrary valid argument from you regarding the points in the links has been posted. Making the assertion that I'm not looking for truth is irrelevant as the main narrative here is to provide reasonable doubt in the conventional dating methods. Since I have provided reasonable doubt in the links feel free to debate but you will inevitably not refute the points because they are mere evidence.
Enjoy
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 6:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 9:32 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 10:27 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 11:13 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 222 (827355)
01-23-2018 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
01-23-2018 8:12 AM


Re: Questions
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude truth. This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion unless you believe in idealism.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2018 8:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2018 7:20 PM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2018 9:28 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2018 10:05 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 222 (827356)
01-23-2018 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coyote
01-22-2018 10:52 PM


Re: Questions
I don't need to defer to creationist points rooted in theology as you claim. The dispute is within the scientific community as I have referenced a few links proving it is within the scientific community. Honestly, it just is validating creationist thought.
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2018 10:52 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 9:20 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 222 (827367)
01-23-2018 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
01-23-2018 9:32 AM


Re: Questions
Your argument is not scientific... It is emotional old man. ROFL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 9:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:06 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 103 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 11:13 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 222 (827368)
01-23-2018 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
01-23-2018 10:27 AM


Re: Questions
I disagree. Truth is the shedding of light, and I don't specifically mean in a theological sense. If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias. I'm merely attempting to point out that bias. I've said my point of view. I've also asked for your opinions. And soon I'll respond to Percy who has made a mess of things. I'm sure he is purposefully deceitful since it's clear he is conventional in his views, and would like to hate apparently vs being unbiased and debating as I have done.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 10:27 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:34 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 107 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 11:36 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 12:43 PM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 222 (827369)
01-23-2018 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by JonF
01-23-2018 9:20 AM


Re: Questions
Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific. Be more specific as to how per each point they make. FYI looking at the link. Anything you want me to look at?
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 9:20 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:41 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 12:58 PM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 222 (827384)
01-23-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Taq
01-23-2018 11:09 AM


Re: Questions
Where is the contradiction? You quoted my belief system. I guess I can't have a belief and seek truth.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 11:09 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 12:56 PM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 222 (827387)
01-23-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Stile
01-23-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Questions
Right... Theories are mere falsehoods in science. And to some a theory will never refute theology. Roflol.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 11:43 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2018 4:48 PM DOCJ has replied
 Message 149 by Stile, posted 01-24-2018 9:45 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 222 (827388)
01-23-2018 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by JonF
01-23-2018 12:58 PM


Re: Questions
Please point out where I was incorrect. If you can't see the difference between my posts, it does shed some light on things.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 12:58 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 1:06 PM DOCJ 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