Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2018 7:34 PM
271 online now:
dwise1, foreveryoung, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 267 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,952 Year: 8,775/29,783 Month: 1,022/1,977 Week: 160/380 Day: 44/66 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 222 (827571)
01-28-2018 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by NoNukes
01-28-2018 12:10 AM


Re: Questions
He was not debunked. He was debated. And it depends on who you listen to as to whether or not he is supported. Probability is not assigned by popular support. You can't have inflation in a bb universe where quasars live next to each other. And there is good reason why the bb is not theoretical yet and why you need another hypothesis like inflation to explain it yet both are not theoretical.

Edited by DOCJ, : Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2018 12:10 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2018 10:14 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 167 of 222 (827572)
01-28-2018 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 12:13 AM


Re: Questions
NASA astronomers like Hugh Ross support dating methods... What are you talking about??

Hugh Ross is an exception--an old earther. His views are very widely disputed within the creationist community.

You want dispute, that's where you'll find it, not within the scientific community.


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

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

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

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

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:13 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:24 AM Coyote has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 222 (827573)
01-28-2018 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Coyote
01-28-2018 12:22 AM


Re: Questions
The dispute over dating methods is in the scientific cimmunity not the theological community. I have pointed out that the EU community is generally evolutionist supporters. Anyway, we're just going in a circle. Thank you for providing your opinion.

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:22 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:29 AM DOCJ has responded
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 2:52 AM DOCJ has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 169 of 222 (827574)
01-28-2018 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 12:24 AM


Re: Questions
The dispute of dating methods is within Science not theology.

Nonsense. I've been attending science conferences and meetings for decades and there is no dispute over radiocarbon dating. The discussions have been how to fine tune it, and that's been done over the decades.

By the way, I've written articles and monographs, and presented workshops, on radiocarbon dating, and I served for a while on the advisory body of a radiocarbon laboratory, so don't be trying to pull the wool over my eyes.


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

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

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

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

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:24 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 3:16 AM Coyote has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13994
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 170 of 222 (827575)
01-28-2018 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 12:24 AM


Re: Questions
quote:

The dispute of dating methods is within Science not theology

Your links so far - especially the ignorant display in the Thunderbolts forum - do nothing to establish that.

You’ve mentioned Answers in Genesis who dispute radiometric dates on theological grounds - and has failed to come up with solid scientific criticism. You,be provided no evidence that the EU community have any scientific objection and the other organisation you cited - Reasons to Believe is an Old Earth Creationist organisation.

If there is a genuine scientific dispute then show us the science. Not a bunch of ignorant twits pontificating in an Internet forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:24 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 3:10 AM PaulK has responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 222 (827576)
01-28-2018 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by PaulK
01-28-2018 2:52 AM


Re: Questions
Everything you just posted is wrong. I'm not sure how you can post it. Oh well. It's fine, I'll finish here with thank you for sharing your conventional scientific view.

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 2:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:32 AM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 222 (827577)
01-28-2018 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
01-28-2018 12:29 AM


Re: Questions
Ok, good job. I still don't know why you, or others, have not stopped the assumptions? I mean, how can you trust a date when you have not an idea how much of the parent or daughter chemicals were present in the find being dated at creation? OR how can you just pretend to know nothing has changed within the find except natural decay, from the original state at creation?

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : 😁😁🤣🤣

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification after the conversation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:29 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 11:04 AM DOCJ has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13994
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 222 (827579)
01-28-2018 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 3:10 AM


Re: Questions
quote:

Everything you just posted is wrong.

And yet you provide no evidence that a single word of it is wrong.

Since it is well known that Reasons to Believe is an Old Earth Creationist organisation it is just a little odd that you would chose to cite them as an example of scientific dissent. And it doesn’t take much research to find examples of RtB supporting conventional dating.Here they talk about carbon dating.

I’ve already dealt with some of the idiocy from the Thundebolts forum thread you posted - which is quite enough to discredit it as science.

Any other points you wish to dispute ? If you want to look even stupider than you do already I’m quite happy to rub it in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 3:10 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 3:34 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 176 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 4:05 AM PaulK has responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 222 (827580)
01-28-2018 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by PaulK
01-28-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Questions
You have completely missed any of my points. Good job.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:32 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:43 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13994
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 222 (827581)
01-28-2018 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 3:34 AM


Re: Questions
quote:

You have completely missed any of my points. Good job.

You claim to a scientific dispute regarding dating so far involves links which present no scientific work and claims that certain groups dispute it.

I have addressed those points.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 3:34 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 222 (827583)
01-28-2018 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by PaulK
01-28-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Questions
I will restate my point.

Dating methods are disputed within the scientific community:

-The videos from previous posts provide the conferences regarding red shift issues and these are easily pointed out here. Redshift is probably nothing more than intrinsic.

-The websites reference discussions within the EU regarding assumptions made by those in conventional sciences such as that the universe is purely gravitational and chemicals are diffused. You can research the argument within the EU model more if you Desire.

-If you look to other scientists within other organizations such as the physicists at ICR they have another dispute regarding decay, and regarding the original makeup of the material, etc. And they are not crazy Zealots persay.. I'll make the claim that people say don't believe ICR just because they are a Christian organization which is actually unfair to say such a thing as they are scientists trying to provide a alternative narrative.. Prove they are not practicing true Science.

-The point regarding Reasons to Believe was that in that situation you have a fairly good argument within a Creationist worldview, that is accepted by millions, that is supportive of current conventional dating methods. I posted that in argument of the point another made regarding dating methods only being disputed by creationists. I was pointing out that actually it's not a Creationist issue persay. Also I just want to point out that just because an individual has a disagreement on this point doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's just difference of opinion. I've looked into everything I've posted and RTB has a lot of support, the issue being ICR and those believing in a YEC worldview.

-As I've been pointing out, the dating methods are being disputed by scientists, just because you disagree with those scientists doesn't mean they are JUST zealots as is pointed out with Reasons to Believe (Ross is also not a Creationist by birth, came to know God in Science) and the EU. Reasons accepts dating methods being a Creationist organization and the EU/Thunderbolts organization rejects dating methods being a evolutionist organization.

Looking at it all, it's not difficult to conclude that there are different conclusions in science regarding dating methods. I realize ICR, RTB, The EU and conventional scientist are from different practices BUT they are all physicists... Scientists drawing dispute about their conclusions..

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : End

Edited by DOCJ, : End

Edited by DOCJ, : End

Edited by DOCJ, : End

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:32 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 4:40 AM DOCJ has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13994
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 222 (827587)
01-28-2018 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 4:05 AM


Re: Questions
quote:

. Dating methods are disputed within the scientific community.
-The videos from previous posts provide the conferences regarding red shift issues and these are easily pointed out here. Prove redshift is nothing more than intrinsic. The idea that red shift has to do with distance is not proven therefor it has no evidence.

The redshift argument is irrelevant to the dating methods discussed. In fact it has no relevance to the age of the Earth - the major point of contention - at all.

I will also note that the arguments against a general correlation of redshift with distance - which is what you are actually talking about - don’t seem to have been very successful.

quote:

The websites reference discussions within the EU regarding assumptions made by those in conventional sciences such as that the universe is purely gravitational and chemicals are diffused

Is that meant to be your excuse for linking to that inane thread in the Thunderbolts forum ? All it showed was that the forum is full of people who are hopelessly ignorant of the relevant science - and rejec5 it for reason# that don’t really make sense.

quote:

If you look to other scientists within other organizations such as the physicists at ICR they have another dispute regarding decay, and regarding the original makeup of the material, etc. And they are not crazy Zealots persay.. I'll make the claim that people say this just because they a Christian which is actually unfair to presume such a thing as they are scientists..

And yet the Christians at Reasons to Believe - an organisation you cited - back up the scientific view on the age of the Earth.

You fail to mention that the ICR has theological requirements for membership - including a belief in a young Earth. To claim that they dispute methods that refute their theolgical doctrines is hardl6 sufficient to establish a dispute within science. (Indeed it is notable that those who do argue for a Young Earth virtually always start with a theological conviction that the Earth is young)

quote:

My point regarding Reasons to Believe was that in that situation you have a fairly good argument within a Creationist worldview, that is accepted by millions, that is supportive of current conventional dating methods

Hardly a point clearly made - or even relevant. As an organisation devoted to apologetics Reasons to Believe is hardly a better example of science than the ICR or Answers in Genesis. Perhaps if you want to show a real dispute in science you should show credible scientific organisations ? Are there any real scientific organisations that dispute the age of the Earth ?

quote:

As I've been pointing out, the dating methods are being disputed by scientists, just because you disagree with those scientists doesn't mean they are JUST zealots as is pointed out with Reasons to Believe (Ross is also not a Creationist by birth, came to know God in Science) and the EU.

The existence of a theological disagreement between the ICR and RtB hardly demonstrates that either side are NOT zealots (both of them are populated by zealots who compromise their allegedly scientific work to support their religious or religiously inspired beliefs).

So, the fact that “scientists” in the ICR And AiG dispute dating methods does not establish the existence of a scientific dispute. There is no need for me to prejudge their work at this stage - all I need to do is withhold judgement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 4:05 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 5:05 AM PaulK has responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 222 (827589)
01-28-2018 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
01-28-2018 4:40 AM


Re: Questions
My main point is still not being addressed. You went off on several personal tangents. If you love yourself that's fine but nothing you posted changed the strength of the main point. Fyi I was responding to posts and catching you up since you seemed to be out of the loop. I suppose the only thing I can agree with you on is that I went off topic but I don't care abit. I did think it was a general discussion on dating methods when I posted WRT redshift assumptions (which your point is silly because redshift pointing to distance is not proven). And atheists are also religious Zealots with ambition to push purly naturalist causes. Get over yourself. Dating is being disputed between Christian's and Naturalist's.. there is no absolutist way to prove that 1 of the organizations from ICR, EU or within the conventional scientist worldview is absolutely correct. Go ahead say whatever you want, you can't prove any of your claims about those groups if you are claiming they are not practicing Science.. I could make the claim about Naturalist's as well such as discussing funding/political pushing within Naturalist groups.. Such as the BS with climate change. However, I will just claim science is not united over dating methods and SHOW it with all the scientists from different groups and the disputes as I have done.

I have not seen any reason to just fold and say ok I believe in conventional naturalistic cause for all things using dating methods as a way to begin that jouney.. hence why the issue is in the Scientific community..

Fyi my personal belief system does not require the Bible to be scientific as it was NEVER a scientific text. And when people try to undermine the authority of the Bible with Science they are being rediculous. It's a supernatural book..

I'm merely discussing dating methods and Science. If at some point I accept dating methods I may try to connect the dots but I may not since I do realize Science changes regularly..

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : Notes

Edited by DOCJ, : End

Edited by DOCJ, : End

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 4:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 5:45 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13994
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 179 of 222 (827590)
01-28-2018 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 5:05 AM


Re: Questions
quote:

My main point is still not being addressed. You went off on several personal tangents. If you love yourself that's fine but nothing you posted changed the strength of the main point.

Directly addressing your points is not going off on a personal tangent.

If you feel I missed on perhaps you should actually repeat it.

quote:

And atheists are also religious Zealots with ambitions to push purly naturalist causes

How funny. You make exactly the sort of prejudiced prejudgment you complained about. And I rather think that pointing out that I don’t rely on such prejudgements was rather relevant.

quote:

Dating is being disputed between Christian's and Naturalists.. there is no absolutist way to prove that 1 of the organizations from ICR, EU or within the conventional scientist worldview is absolutely correct

Dating is being disputed between people with a theological commitment to a Young Earth and pretty much everyone else. That in itself is evidence that the dispute is not scientific. Especially when we consider that the Young Earthers are arguing for an age that really isn’t tenable. When we consider the actual age they propose the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming.

You can see the thread here on correlations for some of the evidence.

quote:

Go ahead say whatever you want, you can't prove any of your claims about those groups if you are claiming they are not practicing Science.. I could make the claim about naturalists as well, or maybe discuss funding rights/political push within naturalists groups.

The question, of course is whether their rejection of dating methods is scientifically sound. Since we have good reasons to suspect otherwise the onus is on you to show that it is. But apparently you’d rather link to an ignorant discussion on a forum than put up anything that even claims to be science.

quote:

However, I will just claim science is not united over dating methods and SHOW it with all the scientists from different groups and the disputes as I have done.

But you haven’t shown it at all.

quote:

I have not seen any reason to just fold and say ok I believe in conventional naturalistic cause for all things using dating methods as a way to begin that jouney..

Do you see a reason to actuallyy educate yourself and understand what you are talking about ? I mean being ignorant and irrational obviously works on the Thunderbolts forum but it isn’t going to fly here. And being arrogant and dishonest hardly helps either.

quote:

my personal belief system does not require the bible to be scientific as it was NEVER a scientific text. And when people try to undermine the authority of the bible with Science they are being rediculous. It's a supernatural book.. I

And now you are being silly. If the Bible doesn’t claim that the Earth is young then Science showing otherwise hardly undermines it. But in that case why are you dragging the Bible into it ?

Added to answer an edit:

quote:

I'm merely discussing dating methods and Science. If at some point I accept dating methods I may try to connect the dots but I may not since I do realize Science changes regularly..

The idea that science - real science - would accept that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old is flat out absurd. Science doesn’t change that much, not about anything that firmly established.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 5:05 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19509
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 180 of 222 (827591)
01-28-2018 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:52 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:25 AM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018