Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2018 9:41 PM
210 online now:
14174dm, frako, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge (4 members, 206 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,095 Year: 18,918/29,783 Month: 863/2,043 Week: 415/386 Day: 72/107 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 222 (827412)
01-23-2018 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Coyote
01-23-2018 4:53 PM


Re: Questions
Prove your claim and fyi the EU is not a group of religious zealots, they are evolutionists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2018 4:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 5:12 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 137 of 222 (827413)
01-23-2018 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:03 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

Um I made a claim provided the data. Done.

Forum Guidline #5

"Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. "

Still waiting for the supporting discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:03 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 138 of 222 (827414)
01-23-2018 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:05 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

Prove your claim and fyi the EU is not a group of religious zealots, they are evolutionists.

Just go to the very thread you linked to before on 14C dating. Every page is replete with links to creationist websites.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:05 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 139 of 222 (827415)
01-23-2018 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:54 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

The Science community is ANYONE practicing Science.

Those scientists report their scientific work in peer reviewed journals, not on the Thunderbolts forum, youtube, or creationist websites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:54 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 140 of 222 (827416)
01-23-2018 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:39 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

It's not difficult to understand or post that dating methods are being disputed in the science community. It is equally a simple matter to reference. Links have been provided.

You haven't provided a single reference to a peer reviewed paper, nor discussed a single reference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:39 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4295
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 141 of 222 (827418)
01-23-2018 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:54 PM


Re: Questions
Well, then, no problem. By your definition EU loons aren't doing science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:54 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4295
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 142 of 222 (827419)
01-23-2018 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:03 PM


Re: Questions
Not done until you successfully address the objections.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:03 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6389
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 143 of 222 (827421)
01-23-2018 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:54 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

The Science community is ANYONE practicing Science. LOL.

Well sort of, but not really.

The science community is made up of scientists practicing science, but there's a concensus amongst scientists in any field about the state of the art in that specialism at any one time.

And much of science is settled, not in any substantive doubt. This is the case in the stuff you're blustering about.

Also, at any one time there are nutters, weirdos, conspiracy theorists, religious zealots, hobbyists and amateurs doing science, or something like it. The test of whether they're actually doing real science is whether their work stands up to other scientists analysis of their work.

Now I know nothing of which you speak but I do know that it's outwith the scientific concensus and well inside nutter territory, so you have an uphill struggle - you have to convince.

If you're hoping to convince, you have to explain. Providing bare links to videos is not convincing. Providing single sentence responses is not not convincing. Putting LOL at the end of a sentence is not convincing.

If you want to convince us, tell us the story and provide real evidence. Demonstrate the science that you claim you have.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:54 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 144 of 222 (827422)
01-23-2018 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:52 AM


Re: Questions, no answers yet
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. ...

Give me an example, some profound truth that has not changed through time. "Truth" wears many cloaks. Just look at Trump and his followers ....

... Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. ...

As you have failed to do with your links?

It is always amusing when people come to this forum and trumpet some attempt at skepticism of all things science, but fail utterly to be just as skeptical of their beliefs ... when there is less objective evidence and data for them, and more reason to be skeptical of them as a result.

The pseudoskeptic is only skeptical of what he doesn't believe and doesn't apply the same degree of evidence and lack of bias on his own beliefs that he demands from others.

... In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude -a- "truth". ...

(fixed it for you)

... and when a different interpreter is able to conclude a different truth? We see it all the time on this forum. Your purported skepticism of dating methods for instance.

Something that you hold to be true, and I hold to be tentative or false, based on the same evidence and data shows that there is no unmalleable truth involved ... at least one of us is wrong, having only opinion, bias and assumption of being "right" instead of tentative conclusions based on objective evidence and reality approximating knowledge that doesn't claim to be anything more.

... This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion ...

Curiously, you provide no evidence, no data, no objective argument "without the bias shrouding it" for your claim. A delusion is holding a belief in spite of contradictory information. I see no contradictory information as yet.

Therefor I have no reason to accept your argument as valid.

... unless you find idealism optional.

You talking to yourself?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 91 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:52 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(3)
Message 145 of 222 (827426)
01-24-2018 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:54 PM


Re: Questions
Let us consider your Link 2

The first post cites a Science Daily report of a press release about a calibration of C14 dates covering the last 50,000 years. These calibrations take carbon dates of material of known age because C14 production - and therefore the levels in the atmosphere - can vary. By finding the actual ratios corresponding to known dates C14 is based on measurements rather than pure theory

He then goes on with the idea that electrical phenomena might mess up carbon dating oblivious to the fact that the calibration he’s just referred to covers any factors that might generally mess up dates.

Citing a patent application (which is an odd source and not one that should automatically be trusted - especially when the patent is not granted as seems to be the case here) he comes up with the idea that electromagnetic phenomena might produce more C14 in the atmosphere but without any attempt to quantify it. Which would be useless even if it would have an effect on C14 dating which it wouldn’t. Even if the production of C14 did vary due to this mechanism the calibration is done to take account of variations in C14 production.

This is not science. It is ignorant speculation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:54 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17984
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 146 of 222 (827431)
01-24-2018 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 3:44 PM


Re: Questions
Replying to a number of your messages...

Regarding your Message 124:

I'm guessing you need coffee,...

In other words, you have no answers to the criticisms.

...then go research the source.

You're expected to describe the evidence and rationale for your position in your own words, something you have yet to do.

Moving on to your Message 130 to Taq:

DOCJ in Message 130 writes:

It's not difficult to understand or post that dating methods are being disputed in the science community. It is equally a simple matter to reference. Links have been provided.

You need to describe the radiometric dating methods that are in question, why they're in question, and provide links to peer reviewed literature supporting your claims. The reality is that you've been taken in by videos and websites making claims that have no basis in reality.

Moving on to your Message 131 to me:

It was a metaphor...

What you said was, "Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific." There is no metaphor. You made a typo, or you misspoke, or you don't understand simple English.

Dating methods are being disputed in the science community. Links provided.

I already addressed this in my above comments about your message to Taq.

There is absolutely nothing else needed to be posted. I've mastered the claim. Lol..

This is obviously untrue since you haven't described any evidence, haven't provided any analysis, indeed haven't demonstrated an understanding of the position you're advocating that decay rates are affected by the electric universe.

Moving on to your Message 132 to Taq:

The Science community is ANYONE practicing Science. LOL.

Yes, that is funny, because the links you've provided are to charlatans pretending to practice science.

You don't get to control what is and what is not science.

We don't control what's science, but we can certainly call attention to those who claim they're doing science when they're not.

As long as they are making observations, formulating ideas based on observations, testing their ideas, making predictions, and presenting their conclusions before a group of peers to have others repeat their claim, or attempt to falsify their claim, it is the science community.

And who in the electric universe is doing these things? No one. Wikipedia says:

quote:
Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

I know you would just LOVE it if you could pick and choose based on your feelings but that is not science.

Advocates of the electric universe demonstrate that their not doing science by the simple fact of not doing any science, meaning they're not engaged in any of the scientific activities you listed above. Instead of doing science they're creating websites and videos for a failed idea with little evidential support.

Moving on to your Message 135 to Taq:

Um I made a claim provided the data. Done.

You made a claim but provided no data. Not done.

Moving on to your Message 136 to Coyote:

Prove your claim and fyi the EU is not a group of religious zealots, they are evolutionists.

The claim that radiocarbon dating is not disputed except for Biblical literalists is supported by the fact that the vast majority of detractors are Biblical literalists. You EU guys seem to be non-religious fellow travelers particularly gullible regarding false claims. For instance, in your link to C14 dating someone says:

quote:
As I understand it, the rate of decay of an isotope is dependant on the ambient electromagnetic background - if this Background changes, the rate of decay will also change - the longer the timeframe involved the less accurate the dating technique will be.

This couldn't be more wrong. The only way electromagnetism affects radiometric decay is in its effect on any charged particles that emerge from decay. The Earth's magnetic field can have an effect on the rate of C-14 production because 14C is produced by cosmic rays striking 14N in the upper atmosphere, and the varying strength of the Earth's magnetic field varies the amount of cosmic rays striking 14N atoms. Solar flares can distort the Earth's the magnetic field and also affect 14C production.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add response to [msg=124].

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:44 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 01-24-2018 8:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 147 of 222 (827432)
01-24-2018 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Percy
01-24-2018 8:34 AM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
Percy writes:

The Earth's magnetic field can have an effect on the rate of C-14 production because 14C is produced by cosmic rays striking 14N in the upper atmosphere, and the varying strength of the Earth's magnetic field varies the amount of cosmic rays striking 14N atoms. Solar flares can distort the Earth's the magnetic field and also affect 14C production.

It might be worthwhile also pointing out that the amount of 14C produced has absolutely no significance when looking at 14C decay. The decay rates remain the same regardless of how much is produced.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 01-24-2018 8:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 01-24-2018 11:12 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 01-25-2018 1:32 AM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 148 of 222 (827433)
01-24-2018 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:52 AM


Re: Questions and challenges
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 find idealism optional.

Here's another approach, a challenge, for you to demonstrate your truthiness beliefs:

You have made comments and references regarding the validity of 14C dating methods.

The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) deals with the evidence that supports 14C dating, from tree rings to marine and lake varves. It also has sections on testing the validity of the systems and determining their accuracy.

The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age?

If you think this is wrong (you're entitled to your opinion) then detail where and why, provide evidence that is objective and empirical and free of bias shrouding it.

On that thread I deal with known facts and the rational conclusions that can be reached.

The floor is yours. Start with Message 1: Correlations, Calibrations and Consilience and Message 2: Definitions of Some Terms Used so you can see the premises or assumptions involved and then proceed to the first set of data on Message 3: The Oldest Known Non-Clonal Trees

Who knows, you might learn something.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 91 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:52 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3282
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 149 of 222 (827435)
01-24-2018 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Questions
Have anything you'd like to actually discuss yet?

Or is your "search for truth" limited to sentences of nonsense here and there?

Take a subject.
Take an idea.

State whether or not you think it's good or bad.
Then explain why you think such a thing.

Use your words.

That's what "searching for truth" really looks like. The more focused and specific you can be, the more likely you'll be able to learn something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:01 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 150 of 222 (827437)
01-24-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
01-24-2018 8:57 AM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
Jar writes:

It might be worthwhile also pointing out that the amount of 14C produced has absolutely no significance when looking at 14C decay. The decay rates remain the same regardless of how much is produced.

Not only that, but any changes in 14C production would show up in the calibration data (which I am sure you are more than aware, but I will discuss for clarity's sake):

The line represents the assumption that 14C production remained stead over the last 50k years. The squiggly blue line represents the actual 14C atmospheric concentrations at those periods in history as determined by actual samples of known age. While there are slight deviations due to changes in things like the Earth's magnetic field, it doesn't deviate that far. There is no sudden change in Earth's atmospheric 14C content like the EU loons want to claim. If there was a sudden change then it would show up in this graph.

If they want to claim that electrical charges change the decay rate of 14C, then they are probably barking mad. I am aware of zero papers demonstrating that 14C decay can be affected by electrical currents, and I would hazard a guess that if it was possible the amount of electrical energy needed would probably destroy the organic sample. There is also the problem of how electrical currents could change 14C content in ice layers, lake varves, speleothems, and tree rings across the globe in a coordinated manner so that all of these sources of data would agree with one another.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 01-24-2018 8:57 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018