Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 5:09 PM
253 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), scoff, Tangle (9 members, 244 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,509 Year: 15,332/29,783 Month: 1,276/1,502 Week: 33/241 Day: 33/36 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 222 (827593)
01-28-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 12:18 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.

And neither is the truth established by you claiming that someone is right and ignoring the rebuttals in the literature. Not debates, actual analysis of the mistakes Arp makes. Anytime you want to have a real discussion, let me know by actually posting the details of Arp's claims.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:18 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4393
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 182 of 222 (827595)
01-28-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by DOCJ
01-27-2018 11:11 PM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation?

They don't presume anything about the rock 'at creation'.

They just presume the daughter was the p and suggest it decayed ?

Are you asking or telling?

If you are asking, the answer is no.

I would think that is overly simplified.

It would be.

If that's what happens.

I wouldn't be able to presume a rock over billions of years had no contamination or no changes over all that time... Or that no daughter was present at creation.

It would appear that only YECs make the assumption that this is how radiometric dates are conducted.

We don't even have a good understanding of the universe..

But we do have AN understanding.

And, you have to admit, no understanding will ever satisfy the YEC movement.

Where it actually came from.. How it is actually functioning.. We don't actually know space has an ability to be curved.. atmospheric refraction can explain light traveling around a planet, or intrinsic properties can explain star light..

Mmm, ... I think you may want to speak for yourself on this.

But sure, we don't know everything, especially if you go far enough back in time. But we do know some things and we can only move forward by building on what we know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DOCJ, posted 01-27-2018 11:11 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 183 of 222 (827596)
01-28-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 3:16 AM


Re: Questions
Ok, good job. I am unsure why you didn't draw any questions regarding how to stop all the assumptions? I mean, how can you trust a date when you have no idea how much of the parent and daughter chemicals were present in the Rock being dated at creation? OR how can you just pretend to know nothing has changed within the Rock, except natural decay, from the original state at creation billions of years ago?

Poor job! Your reply shows you know absolutely nothing about radiocarbon dating!

A few errors: we don't date rocks, only things that were once living. We don't date back to "creation" which for the earth is >4 billion years, just back some 50,000 years or so. We do know the amount of parent material (C14) through tree ring calibrations!

You've shown you don't know the difference between the many radiometric dating methods, but in your ignorance you just know they're all wrong.

If you would just study some of these subjects upon which you are pontificating you'd do lot better in these posts.


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 172 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 3:16 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by edge, posted 01-28-2018 11:30 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 189 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:49 AM Coyote has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4393
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 184 of 222 (827601)
01-28-2018 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
01-28-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Questions
Poor job! Your reply shows you know absolutely nothing about radiocarbon dating!

This is just another version of the old YEC position that if you don't know exactly what happened at the origin of the universe; then your current knowledge is unreliable and religious myth is preferable. That tiny doubt is precious, no matter how far back in time you have to go to find it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 11:04 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:40 AM edge has not yet responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 222 (827637)
01-29-2018 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
01-28-2018 10:05 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
I don't have an issue of debate in that thread. The time from Gen 1:1 to Abraham is not absolutely established. The geneaologies are not absolutely known to be used to age the earth and neither are the days in creation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2018 10:05 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 6:31 AM DOCJ has responded
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 8:59 AM DOCJ has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1903
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 186 of 222 (827638)
01-29-2018 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 6:25 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
This is a science thread. Genealogies of Thor really don't matter at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:25 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:38 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 222 (827639)
01-29-2018 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Pressie
01-29-2018 6:31 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
Then why are you bringing thor up?

Edited by DOCJ, : Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 6:31 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 222 (827640)
01-29-2018 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by edge
01-28-2018 11:30 AM


Re: Questions
I could say the same thing about naturalism. Anything to not only keep your precious view but also so you don't have to think about judgment (i.e. the emotional issue).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by edge, posted 01-28-2018 11:30 AM edge has not yet responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 222 (827642)
01-29-2018 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
01-28-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Questions
I have edited my posts for clarification. In some posts I erased a point in it but only because of clarification as I was not thinking just of radio carbon dating but all dating methods in my original responses.

FYI: If I have not responded to a point in any post, anyone can point it out as I have not read every post. I'll go back ASAP. I am at work 65+ hrs a week, and I have 40+ hrs of other obligations outside work so I will get to the posts asap.

Edited by DOCJ, : Fyi

Edited by DOCJ, : Fyi

Edited by DOCJ, : Fyi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 11:04 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 7:21 AM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 7:51 AM DOCJ has responded
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2018 9:58 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1903
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 190 of 222 (827643)
01-29-2018 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 6:49 AM


Re: Questions
Err, you'll have to work more than 65 hours a week and also have to show hundreds of thousands of specialists from all over the world; each working 40 to 65 + hours a week, too, that they all are wrong. Good luck!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:49 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1903
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 191 of 222 (827646)
01-29-2018 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 6:49 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

I have edited my posts for clarification. In some posts I erased a point in it but only because of clarification as I was not thinking just of radio carbon dating but all dating methods in my original responses.
FYI: If I have not responded to a point in any post, anyone can point it out as I have not read every post. I'll go back ASAP. I am at work 65+ hrs a week, and I have 40+ hrs of other obligations outside work so I will get to the posts asap.

So, you can't refute people who actually know something about even some of those methods of dating at all?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:49 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 8:06 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 222 (827649)
01-29-2018 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Pressie
01-29-2018 7:51 AM


Re: Questions
I don't believe you can have certainty [absolute knowledge] to any belief whether it be because of a body of knowledge, a spec of evidence or a revelation. We are all just trying to figure things out.

The idea of refuting is working within a realm of thought or a body of knowledge... However thought or knowledge is not absolute no matter how good it is founded. In order to refute in a scientific sense it would have to take a backbone piece of evidence of a current theory to be shown false. Such as showing mutations don't occur in evolution, showing electricity is responsible for gravity in gravitational theory, become a God in a theological sense in order to hopefully actually show the ultimate being doesn't exist but it would only show it to yourself. It's easier in medical science because you can have a direct observation vs a indirect observation. For example observing a person dying right after you give them a med, or in math refuting 2 + 1 is 3, or refuting that you are asking about being refuted to see if I will provide a way to be refuted, or if I even believe in refutation.. I would wager both reasons are why you asked... But refuting that is a bit easier for you than me.. Somewhere in the midst of everything is truth. I have just been trying to point all of that above out with dating methods in general not just radiocarbon dating.

FYI: I did admit that my belief system as a whole is adaptable but right now I do lean toward the electrical universe model of the universe. This doesn't mean I think conventional Science is absolutely wrong either. I don't believe Science is some kind of way to knowledge that does provide absolute truth nor does it claim to be that either. The main stuff I accept in science to be more provable is medical science which doesn't need evolutionist mechanisms to function (even though evolutionist mechanisms are typically a presupposition in the thinking). Everything is an argument in reality and everything has a presupposition.

Edited by DOCJ, : Correction

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

Edited by DOCJ, : No reason given.

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : Add

Edited by DOCJ, : End


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 7:51 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 01-29-2018 2:09 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19575
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 193 of 222 (827654)
01-29-2018 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 6:25 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
In Message 189 you said:

... I was not thinking just of radio carbon dating but all dating methods in my original responses.

So we come back to the basics, what base on knowledge can we build for validating "all dating methods" and check to see if you are right, or if you are wrong.

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.

I don't have an issue of debate in that thread. The time from Gen 1:1 to Abraham is not absolutely established. The geneaologies are not absolutely known to be used to age the earth and neither are the days in creation.

Curiously, what I was suggesting is that you look at how the evidence shows radioactive dating to be valid.

As I also said:

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

For instance this diagram shows remarkable consilience and correlation between several different methods of deriving dates and the level of 14C in the samples

Some of them radiometric and some by layer counting. Note that "Conventional 14C Age" is actually just the measured amount of 14C in the samples modified by a mathematical formula:

Message 23 in The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1): Age Calculation(7)

quote:
The Conventional Radiocarbon Age BP is calculated using the radiocarbon decay equation:

t=-8033 ln(Asn/Aon)

Where -8033 represents the mean lifetime of 14C (Stuiver and Polach, 1977). Aon is the activity in counts per minute of the modern standard, Asn is the equivalent cpm for the sample. 'ln' represents the natural logarithm. A CRA embraces the following recommended conventions:

  • a half-life of 5568 years;
  • the use of Oxalic acid I or II, or appropriate secondary radiocarbon standards (e.g. ANU sucrose) as the modern radiocarbon standard;
  • correction for sample isotopic fractionation (deltaC13) to a normalized or base value of -25.0 per mille relative to the ratio of C12/C13 in the carbonate standard VPDB (more on fractionation and deltaC13);
  • the use of 1950 AD as 0 BP, ie all C14 ages head back in time from 1950;
  • the assumption that all C14 reservoirs have remained constant through time.

Note that 5568 is the "Libby half-life" for 14C that was used in the first calculations of "14C-age," and this has been adopted as the standard to avoid correcting this twice when making calibrations and obtaining calibrated dates. The value of Aon is constant, established so that the measured 14C calculation will start at 1950: Aon = Asn(1950 14C). Thus the above formula could be reduced to 14C'age' = Kln(14C level measured) by combining all the constant values into K, or we can simply calculate Asn as a percentage of Aon:

Asn/Aon % = 100e^(-t/8033)

where -8033 = 5568/ln(1/2) to convert to natural logs.

This is the mathematical basis for radiocarbon dating calculations. It is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured 14C/14C(1950CE) levels to the theoretical age based on the decay half-life of 5568 years.

Why does this pattern happen if all radiometric methods are questionable/erroneous/subject to error?

The thread is not so much about measuring ages, but about validating the methods used by showing the correlations and consilience between the various methods, continually coming up with similar if not identical dates (within scientific accuracy).

In Message 192 you say:

I don't believe you can have certainty [absolute knowledge] to any belief whether it be because of a body of knowledge, a spec of evidence or a revelation. We are all just trying to figure things out.

So are we now in agreement on what "truth" can be known? This sure sounds a lot like my argument. "Truth" is tentative and subject to change.

Enjoy

So will you take the challenge or dodge it?

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 185 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:25 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM RAZD has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 222 (827655)
01-29-2018 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
01-29-2018 8:59 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
I read the entire thread. I didn't find any issues that I can undermine persay. However arguably radiocarbon dating MAY be correct but that doesn't mean all radiometric dating is correct. Further using tree rings may be incorrect due to multiplicity and carbon dating maybe incorrect due to the various points I've already pointed out, i.e., the assumptions, so in that case you don't have congruence.

Edited by DOCJ, : Er

Edited by DOCJ, : Er


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 8:59 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 10:50 AM DOCJ has responded
 Message 197 by JonF, posted 01-29-2018 12:34 PM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2018 11:12 AM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 2:03 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 195 of 222 (827656)
01-29-2018 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 6:49 AM


Re: Questions
I have edited my posts for clarification.

It may be better to correct things in a new post. Most of us don't go back to older posts to check for edits.


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 189 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 6:49 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018