Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2018 3:11 AM
188 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,190 Year: 19,013/29,783 Month: 958/2,043 Week: 3/507 Day: 3/85 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 196 of 222 (827659)
01-29-2018 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
I read the entire thread. I didn't find any issues that I can undermine persay. ...

Great. (ps -- per se, usually in italics as it is latin)

... However arguably radiocarbon dating MAY be correct but that doesn't mean all radiometric dating is correct. ...

But it sets a foundation, and now you need to explain how one radioactive isotope can decay in a predictable manner, but a different radioactive isotope would decay in a different manner.

... Further using tree rings may be incorrect due to multiplicity ...

The multiplicity of different dendrochronologies reaching the same dates for the same 14C levels with 99% accuracy?

... 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.

Which doesn't explain the image

It seems to me that the multiple system congruence is a FACT (truth?) -- it's data, objective empirical data -- and that this FACT actually validates the assumptions.

Anyway, please continue with The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 2), Physical/Chemical Counting Systems, you can jump in at Message 2, Basics of Ice Layer Counting. Note that ice cores contain Berillium-10, another cosmogenic isotope created in the atmosphere similar to 14C, 10Be has a longer half-life but the variations match those of the 14C variations:

That's another correlation that ties back to tree rings and 14C, and the ice cores extend the annual layer counting to over 800,000 years. With multiplicity of ice cores agreeing where they overlap, within the limits of scientific accuracy.

Again this is data, objective empirical data, and it also validates the congruence seen in the 14C diagram.

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 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 1:39 PM RAZD has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4304
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 197 of 222 (827674)
01-29-2018 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
The point is that many independent methods produce the same result. This is called "consilience" and nobody has made any credible attempt to explain it other than the obvious one; the methods are measuring real passage of time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 222 (827679)
01-29-2018 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
01-29-2018 10:50 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
The theory actually would need direct evidence to have confidence in it. I disagree that if radiocarbon dating is correct, that it does mean the same method is correct with metals.

Edited by DOCJ, : Edit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 10:50 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by JonF, posted 01-29-2018 2:11 PM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 4:53 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 199 of 222 (827683)
01-29-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by DOCJ
01-27-2018 11:11 PM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
DOCJ writes:

How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation?

On an isochron plot, the daughter element present when the rock forms is the y-intercept of the line drawn through the data points:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

I wouldn't be able to presume a rock over billions of years had didn't have contamination or didn't change over all that time... Or that 0 daughter was present at creation.

We know from basic chemistry that zircons exclude Pb and include U. You would have to change the basic laws of the universe in order for zircons to include any significant amount of Pb when they form.

In my experience, if your theory requires the fundamental laws of the universe to change in order to do away with inconvenient measurements then you have a bad theory.

You should also note that three different isotope decay chains (K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr) give consistent dates for the same geologic layer.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 200 of 222 (827684)
01-29-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 8:06 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

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.

There are decades of research pointing to the reliability of radiometric dating and the constancy of decay rates.

You claim that electrical currents can change decay rates, yet you can't cite a single peer reviewed paper that demonstrates this claim.

It seems that you aren't trying to figure anything out. Rather, you are trying to find any kind of excuse you can in order to ignore the science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 8:06 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4304
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 201 of 222 (827685)
01-29-2018 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 1:39 PM


Re: Questions and still no answers
Get back to us when you have an explanation for consilience.

You are obviously hampered by your abysmal ignorance of the subject of radiometric dating. Carbon dating uses a method that is not useful for any other type of dating. There are many different and independent radiometric methods used in various situations.

Of course you are ignoring the fact that many of the methods used to make the calibration graph RAZD posted do not involve radioactivity.

Many independent methods all produce the same answer. That's an astonishing pattern of thousands of data points. It demands explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 1:39 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 202 of 222 (827688)
01-29-2018 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by DOCJ
01-27-2018 10:58 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:

The EU, Answers in Genesis, Reasons to Believe, and other organizations have scientist working for them. Where they publish may be important to some but not to everyone. And what they publish is the gravity of importance NOT where they publish (yes peers need to be able to review it obviously).

If you want to claim that there is disagreement within the scientific community then it does matter where their work is published. It is a long standing saying in the scientific community that if it isn't published then it doesn't exist. By published, we mean original science published in a peer reviewed journal. Crackpots posting nonsense on websites is not science, nor does it constitute a disagreement within the scientific community.

The fact that you think Arp is somehow relevant says a lot. Arp is simply wrong, and has been wrong for a long time. For example, are these people about to be crushed by a giant boot?

NO. This is called forced perspective where the boot is actually in the foreground and the people are in the distant background. The same principle applies to Arp's claims about interactions between quasars and galaxies. One is the foreground and the other is in the distant background. They aren't side by side.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by DOCJ, posted 01-27-2018 10:58 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 203 of 222 (827694)
01-29-2018 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 1:39 PM


Re: Questions and still no answers
The theory actually would need direct evidence to have confidence in it. ...

What theory? All I have provided is facts, data that is used to then calibrate the 14C curve.

But the curve is irrelevant when you can put all the data in a table with age and the level of 14C in samples found for those ages.

The to date an object you look up the equivalent level of 14C in your artifact to the table and it gives you a date or a range of dates. This can also be shown graphically.

For example, from The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1). Message 14:

quote:
Then there is consilience with Egyptian history and the dating of various finds (artifacts), for example:

Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt(4)

quote:
... Radiocarbon dating, which is a two-stage process involving isotope measurements and then calibration against similar measurements made on dendrochronologically dated wood, usually gives age ranges of 100 to 200 years for this period (95% probability range) and has previously been too imprecise to resolve these questions.

Here, we combine several classes of data to overcome these limitations in precision: measurements on archaeological samples that accurately reflect past fluctuations in radiocarbon activity, specific information on radiocarbon activity in the region of the Nile Valley, direct linkages between the dated samples and the historical chronology, and relative dating information from the historical chronology. Together, these enable us to match the patterns present in the radiocarbon dates with the details of the radiocarbon calibration record and, thus, to synchronize the scientific and historical dating methods. ...

... We have 128 dates from the NK, 43 from the MK, and 17 from the Old Kingdom (OK). The majority (~75%) of the measurements have calibrated age ranges that overlap with the conventional historical chronology, within the wide error limits that result from the calibration of individual dates.

The modeling of the data provides a chronology that extends from ~2650 to ~1100 B.C.E. ...
(red lines added)

The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18) but have the resolution to contradict some suggested interpretations of the evidence, such as the astronomical hypothesis of Spence (24), which is substantially later, or the reevaluation of this hypothesis (25), which leads to a date that is earlier. The absence of astronomical observations in the papyrological record for the OK means that this data set provides one of the few absolute references for the positioning of this important period of Egyptian history (Fig. 1A).


("OK" refers to the "Old Kingdom")

Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ ) -- I added the red lines in the image for discussion:

The earliest/oldest dates in Fig 2 are shown at ~2660 BCE, with 7 samples placed together (with two more placed nearby). There are several possible matches for each of these samples, running from 2580 BCE to 2860 BCE -- due to the wiggle of the 14C amounts in that portion of the graph -- I get 5 possible matches for the lowest point with an average age of 2693 BCE, 8 possible matches for the next point with an average of 2660 BCE, 6 possible matches for the third point for an average of 2702 BCE, 12 possible matches for the fourth point for an average of 2733 BCE, 9 possible matches for the fifth point for an average of 2754 BCE, 6 possible matches for the sixth point for an average of 2750 BCE, 8 possible matches for the seventh point for an average of 2771 BCE, 8 possible matches for the eight point for an average of 2787 BCE, and 6 possible matches for the highest point for an average of 2788 BCE. Assuming these points all represent the same age, the overall average age is ~2740 BCE with σ of +/-88 years (2827 BCE to 2651 BCE).

Shaw's date for the tomb is 2660 BCE, so this falls inside the margin of error and thus is in close agreement with that dating.


+/- 88 years means 88/(2787+2017-1 (no year 0)) = +/- 1.8% accuracy.

This tabulation of 14C levels for ages from 1950 to 50,000 years ago has been compiled by scientiest working on the INTCAL project, shown graphically here:

Note the right side where I have converted the Conventional 14C Age to % of the 1950 level. This represents the level of 14C measured. No theory involved.

... I disagree that if radiocarbon dating is correct, that it does mean the same method is correct with metals.

Metals???

While I agree that the 14C calibration data does not show strong support for exponential decay, due to the variation in initial 14C levels in the atmosphere for different ages, the congruence and consilience of all the data from all the different sources shows that the general pattern for exponential decay is observed from the data.

Stronger evidence for the validity of exponential decay is in The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 2), which lays down further foundational data, and The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 3), which discusses radiometric dating.

The ice layers provide the annual layer data that is then used to validate the radiometric methods. With direct evidence.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 198 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 1:39 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 204 of 222 (827700)
01-30-2018 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by DOCJ
01-27-2018 11:11 PM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
DOCJ writes:

How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation?

Geologists don't. So, not even going to try and read the rest of your incoherent diatribe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DOCJ, posted 01-27-2018 11:11 PM DOCJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 7:00 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 214 by DOCJ, posted 01-31-2018 12:08 PM Pressie has not yet responded

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


Message 205 of 222 (827703)
01-30-2018 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Pressie
01-30-2018 4:31 AM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
DOCJ writes:

How do geologists calculate the amount of the parent/and daughter chemicals in the Rock at creation?

Geologists don't. So, not even going to try and read the rest of your incoherent diatribe.

I think he meant the time of formation of the rock, and I think Jon covered that.

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 204 by Pressie, posted 01-30-2018 4:31 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Pressie, posted 01-30-2018 7:31 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 206 of 222 (827705)
01-30-2018 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
01-30-2018 7:00 AM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
Of course. But some people don't realise that in metamorphic "rocks" different crystals form at different times, temperatures and pressures. You would expect lots of different ages in the same Amphiboles.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 7:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 207 of 222 (827713)
01-30-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
However arguably radiocarbon dating MAY be correct but that doesn't mean all radiometric dating is correct.

True, but radiocarbon being correct is enough to disprove the YEC belief. And no creationist has yet been able to show where it is incorrect.

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.

Tree rings, ice cores, lake varves, speleothems, and corals all agree.

Further, "assumptions" are not wild-ass guesses. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread the ones used in radiocarbon dating are well-supported conclusions based on massive amounts of data.

The bottom line is that radiocarbon dating is highly accurate when used properly, which scientists are careful to do. If you want abuses of the method check the creationist websites--they make a lot of mistakes, many of them through ignorance but some mistakes have to be deliberate in their efforts to fool their followers.


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 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17990
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 208 of 222 (827718)
01-30-2018 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 12:09 AM


Re: Questions
Responding to some of your posts from the past few days...

Regarding your Message 163 to Taq:

DOCJ in Message 163 writes:

Taq writes:

You linked to a Thunderbolts page where they lied about the assumptions of the 14C dating method. They claimed that it is assumed that 14C production was the same in the past. This is a lie. The 14C dating method is calibrated to known historic fluctuations in 14C production as determined by objects of known age such as tree rings, lake varves, ice layers, and speleothems. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in that link.

You obviously didn't read much of the page.

I assume you guys are talking about this thread at the Thunderbolts Forum: C14 dating. It's a long page, and it's just the first page of a seven page thread consisting of 91 messages. How is anyone to know what part of it you're referring to? This is from the first post where he quotes from a patent application:

quote:
Nitrogen 14 is fed by pressure differentials in a continuous process in which atoms are held in fixed magnetic positions while electromagnetic energy converts protons into neutrons thus transmuting nitrogen 14 into carbon 14.

This is spectacularly impossible and entirely unpromising, there seems little point in reading on, though evidently Taq did, I don't know how far.

Rather than just posting a link (where it is rarely clear what information at the link you'd like people to read), if you have information you'd like to discuss then you should describe that information in your message, and you can provide links as references.

Regarding your Message 165 to Coyote:

DOCJ in Message 165 writes:

The EU/Thunderbolts project is a organization filled with PhD degrees in physicists and the like (Thornhill, Arp) that are evolutionists disputing dating methods.

Wal Thornhill is a Velikovsky/EU nut who produces videos and articles. Halton Arp is a cosmology nutcase who in the 1960's using inconclusive photos of distant galaxies decided they were the same distance away and drew absurd cosmological conclusions, then when better telescopes became available that showed the galaxies were at vastly different distances refused to give up his ideas, even after decades.

I could find no information about either of their views on evolution, and calling them evolutionists given their cosmological focus seems rather odd. They both pursue outlandish ideas, beyond the fringes of science into pseudoscience, and neither could be considered members of the scientific community.

And Creationist supporters like at Reasons to Believe with NASA astronomers like Hugh Ross support dating methods...

Hugh Ross is an old Earth creationist. I could not confirm that he was ever employed by NASA. He, too, is not a member of the scientific community.

Thus, Thornhill, Arp and Ross could debate all they like among themselves about dating methods, but it could by no means be considered a debate within science. It would be debate within the nuthouse.

You've obviously expended a lot of time and energy looking into the EU pseudoscience - why bother? There's real science being done out there, and while it won't feel as provocative, amazing, revelatory and antiestablishment, it does have the undeniably positive qualities of being based on real research, peer review, published scientific papers in respectable journals, and consensus building. No EU advocates are members of teams that are able to get time on telescopes - they have to draw the data that they misrepresent from the research performed by the legitimate scientific community.

Regarding your Message 171 to PaulK:

DOCJ in Message 171 writes:

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.

If you're going to issue accusations that someone is posting wrong information, then aren't you obligated, as a matter of not just honor but also in the service of truth, to explain why the information is wrong? Your reluctance to discuss the actual science of EU continues to be your most obvious quality.

Regarding your Message 172 to Coyote:

DOCJ in Message 172 writes:

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?

In the early days of radiometric dating of rocks the methods then available did require knowledge of the original concentrations of daughter elements, but this is no longer true and hasn't been true for a very long time, a half century at least. For radiocarbon dating, which only applies to organic material, the parent/daughter element issue isn't a problem.

DOCJ writes:

OR how can you just pretend to know nothing has changed within the find except natural decay, from the original state at creation?

There aren't many things that can be changed without leaving behind evidence of change. What kind of undetectable changes are you imagining that could alter dateable rocks in ways that still yielded consilient results across a variety of dating methods? For radiocarbon dating, what kind of undetectable changes are you imagining could alter the 14C content of organic material?

Regarding your Message 176 to PaulK:

DOCJ in Message 176 writes:

Dating methods are disputed within the scientific community:

No, they aren't. The people disputing dating methods are not "within the scientific community." They do like to claim that they are, and frequently they have scientific degrees, but when you look to their research you find that it is either non-existent or published in journals established by religious groups or that have no acceptance criteria or that are "pay to publish".

-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.

This is untrue, but since it is irrelevant to dating methods, the topic of this thread, I won't comment further.

-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 this paragraph refers to data that is relevant to radiometric dating then you're invited to present that data in this thread. If the paragraph doesn't refer to relevant data then it doesn't belong here.

-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.

No, they're pretty much crazy zealots. And it's "per se", not "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.

ICR "scientists" prove they're not "practicing true Science" every day. That they're not doing real science is why they have to invent their own conferences and journals. If you think ICR has produced scientific data that invalidates dating methods then you're invited to present it in this thread.

-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,...

I don't think Hugh Ross's ability to bamboozle millions (if indeed that is a valid number) of non-scientists budges the needle of science at all.

...that is supportive of current conventional dating methods.

As an Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross of course accepts far more of legitimate science than do Young Earth Creationists like ICR, so of course as an OEC Hugh Ross accepts radiometric dating. Hugh Ross' craziness lies in other realms, such as his rejection of plate tectonics and his belief that humans are biologically distinct from the rest of all life and are not descended from any extinct hominid species.

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.

ICR is Young Earth Creationism, Reasons to Believe is Old Earth Creationism. They're both creationist organizations. These non-scientific organizations can dispute each other's positions all they like, but that is not a dispute within legitimate scientific circles.

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.

It isn't individuals showing you're wrong but the actual evidence. We live in the real world, and real world data tells us certain things about that world, and it doesn't resemble the EU, nor does it cast any questions or doubt on radiometric dating, whose history of improvement and increasing validation will continue on into the future.

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.

Two crazy (when it comes to science) religious organizations disagree. So what.

-As I've been pointing out, the dating methods are being disputed by scientists,...

Name the scientists with a legitimate record of research in a relevant field who are disputing dating methods.

...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.

Reasons to Believe is a religious, not a scientific, organization. This is from their mission statement page (Our Mission & Beliefs):

quote:
RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.

EU/Thunderbolts is a self-promoting pseudoscientific organization/website. I don't know why you'd call them "evolutionist". Sure, they accept evolution (not that they don't have some weird ideas - see for example Evolution and Earth’s Electric Field), but that's irrelevant to their primary mission of promoting the EU. It makes no sense that they should care about dating methods since even if the EU were true, it wouldn't affect decay rates.

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.

Disputes between ICR, RtB and the EU are not scientific disputes. These are all pseudoscientific organizations pursuing their own agendas having little to do with real science.

Regarding your Message 178 to PaulK:

DOCJ in Message 178 writes:

My main point is still not being addressed.

The one working hardest at not addressing your main point, presumably the Assumptions involved in scientific dating, is you. You post links instead of describing evidence and providing analysis.

You went off on several personal tangents.

PaulK addressed your points directly, quoting them and then responding.

If you love yourself that's fine...

A false accusation followed by a gratuitous and nonsensical insult. Way to go.

...but nothing you posted changed the strength of the main point.

Pointing out that these supposed "scientific disputes" about dating methods are actually between religious and pseudoscientific organizations strikes to the heart of your main point.

Fyi I was responding to posts and catching you up since you seemed to be out of the loop.

Whoa, another gratuitous insult. Stay on topic, dude. If PaulK is wrong and you have the evidence that he is wrong, then present that evidence. If on the other hand you got nothing then you should say nothing.

I suppose the only thing I can agree with you on is that I went off topic but I don't care a bit.

Others care a lot, and staying on topic is in the Forum Guidelines. That being said, topic diversions are expected and occur all the time, but members should try to maintain an intent to a return to the main topic as expeditiously as possible. Members should care a great deal about the length and degree of the topic diversion.

I did think it was a general discussion on dating methods when I posted WRT redshift assumptions...

What does red shift have to do with dating methods? PaulK made the same point. You've provided no answer.

...(which your point is silly because redshift pointing to distance is not proven).

Nothing in science is ever proven because of the tentative nature of all science, but all the evidence points to increasing red shift with increasing distance, and in fact the theory of relativity, which has been validated nine ways from Sunday, holds that an expanding universe is an inherent quality.

And atheists are also religious Zealots with ambition to push purely naturalist causes.

All your mentions of religious organizations, and now this, argues against your true interest being science.

Get over yourself.

Interesting, yet another gratuitous derogatory remark. Apparently you interpret disagreement with you as indicating some kind of personal flaw. I wonder, could you possibly turn your personal analysis machine around and let us know what it says about you?

Dating is being disputed between Christian's and Naturalist's.

Congratulations, you've finally said something almost true. Obviously you're trying to maintain the fiction that the dispute is within science, between Christian scientists on one side and Naturalist scientists on the other. But there is no such thing as non-natural science. The reality is that there *is* a dispute between evangelicals and science about dating methods (though much more about evolution), but it is a dispute, much quieter now than a decade ago, that takes place at school board meetings and in legislatures, not within the halls of science.

There is no absolutist way to prove that 1 of the organizations from ICR, EU or within the conventional scientist worldview is absolutely correct.

Of course this is true. Nothing within science is ever proven to be absolutely correct. The principle of tentativity demands that science always be prepared to change its views in light of new evidence and/or improved understanding. You've misconstrued what your arguing against, which isn't the claim that science is absolutely correct (a claim that no one in science would make) but is the claim that science has so much evidence for its views about dating methods in the form of data and in the way it binds tightly into the rest of the fabric of scientific knowledge that a strong consensus that it is likely true has formed.

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.

If you have evidence of these religious groups or the EU groups practicing science, this thread is your opportunity to present it.

I could make the claim about Naturalist's as well such as discussing funding/political pushing within Naturalist groups.

Your trying to argue through labeling. The proper terminology is scientists and science, not Naturalists and Naturalist groups. If you want evidence that scientists are truly practicing science then we'll have no trouble providing you references to technical papers published in highly respected scientific journals.

Such as the BS with climate change.

Oh, you're a climate change denier, too. Well, at least you're consistent.

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.

In this you have failed miserably.

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 journey, hence why the issue is in the Scientific community.

No one is asking you to "fold". We're asking you to say things that are true and provide evidence for your positions.

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 ridiculous. It's a supernatural book.

No one said anything about the Bible, so this response that has all the appearances of a rebuttal of some claim about the Bible is out of place.

I'm merely discussing dating methods and Science.

No, you're not discussing dating methods and science. You're discussing ICR and RtB and EU/Thunderbolts and disputes and religion and the Bible and atheists and so on. We're more than ready to get into the technical details of dating methods, but they don't seem to interest you much.

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.

It's good that you realize that science "changes regularly," but do you understand why it changes? Is the principle of tentativity clear to you, that of necessity science *must* change to reflect the latest (and presumably best) data and understandings, else it would cease to be our best understanding of the real world as it really is?

Regarding your Message 187 to Pressie:

Then why are you bringing thor up?

He wasn't bringing Thor up. That was sarcasm carried out through a reference to a genealogy as fictitious as "Gen 1:1 to Abraham".

Regarding your Message 188 to Edge:

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).

Science *does* happen to have evidence for what it believes true about our universe. That evidence *does* exist in copious quantities, should you ever become interested in discussing it. RAZD, as if often the case, has been the most energetic in presenting evidence to you, but your responses to his evidence-laden posts have been very short and have addressed none of the specifics of what he presents.

Regarding your Message 189 to Coyote:

DOCJ in Message 189 writes:

I have edited my posts for clarification.

You shouldn't be changing old posts, and you especially shouldn't be changing old posts that people have already replied to. Sometimes changing an old post is a good idea, but in that case it is important to do two things: a) Indicate the region of change in some way. A common way to do this is to put the change at the end, preceding it with the AbE acronym that stands for "Added by Edit". Another common way to do this is to put the added text in a region with [AbE] at the beginning and [/AbE] at the end. You don't have to use these methods, you can invent one of your own, but you should under no circumstances make significant changes to existing sentences or paragraphs. And b) Include a note in a new message about having made the change, and include a link to the message you changed.

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.

Can you provide links to the messages you edited?

Regarding your Message 192 to Pressie:

DOCJ in Message 192 writes:

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.

Pressie made no claim to certainty or absolute knowledge. He merely noted your failure to provide rebuttal to those who happen to be familiar with the science behind dating methods. The rest of your post revolves around this misinterpretation of what Pressie was saying, so I won't further comment.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:09 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by JonF, posted 01-30-2018 6:49 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

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


(5)
Message 209 of 222 (827719)
01-30-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by DOCJ
01-29-2018 9:55 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
I'm going to pursue this a little further:

... 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.

The congruence is there because the data matches from different systems. If there were problems they should not result in this congruence.

If the tree rings are incorrect why do the 2 oak chronologies agree within 99% of their common record -- if mistakes were common how does this accuracy happen?

If the tree rings are incorrect why do the combined oak chronologies agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronologies within 98% over their common record?

Why do the tree dendrochronologies match with the varve chronologies within 95% over their common record?

If the carbon-14 dating is incorrect why do we consistently find the same levels of 14-C at the same ages?

If one or the other or both are wrong, why such a straight line correlation>

Just asking.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 194 by DOCJ, posted 01-29-2018 9:55 AM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4304
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 210 of 222 (827723)
01-30-2018 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Percy
01-30-2018 1:58 PM


Re: Questions
I feel compelled to comment on knowing the initial isotopic state of the sample. Several modern methods do require that be known but the laws of physics give us the information we need. The most widely used is, of course, the aforementioned knowledge that zircons readily incorporate uranium and strongly reject lead so the initial P/U ratio is essentially zero. Another is the fact that uranium is somewhat soluble in water and thorium is not, so corals and speleothems and bones in groundwater and whatnot start with a Th/U ratio of zero. That's disequilibrium dating... think Hezekiah's tunnel.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 01-30-2018 1:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Pressie, posted 01-31-2018 6:15 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
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