Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 76 of 222 (827331)
01-22-2018 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ
01-22-2018 10:29 PM


Re: Questions
You respond to edge:
DOCJ writes:
In interpreting your response, it does seem as if you do not care about the accuracy of dating.
I don't see that in edge's response, nor do I see that in any scientists I deal with. What use are inaccurate dates?
In my field, archaeology, we make extensive use of radiocarbon dating. Scientists in various fields spend a lot of time working with the method to make it as accurate as possible. Correction for isotropic fractionation and atmospheric fluctuation are two examples. The calibration curve, which has been mentioned in a number of RAZD's threads, is another example--tree rings, glacial varves, corals, and several other sources of annular data all agree, and this lets us calibrate our dates. The most recent curve is 2013. The nice thing is, when I go back and recalibrate my dates using the most recent curve, the changes from the older curve are generally miniscule. But whenever a new curve comes out I go back and recalibrate many hundred dates because I want the most accurate dates I can get!
So I don't believe for a moment that edge or any other serious scientist doesn't care about the accuracy of dates and dating methods.
Creationists, on the other hand, often go to great lengths to twist dates around to suit their religious beliefs. Vapor canopies and wildly fluctuating decay rates are just two things they sometimes claim. At one point I was collecting faulty creationist claims about radiocarbon dating, and the results were pretty enlightening. So, if you want to critique approaches to dating you might look at what creationists have been claiming--its a target-rich environment!

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 75 by DOCJ, posted 01-22-2018 10:29 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 9:00 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 77 of 222 (827337)
01-23-2018 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ
01-22-2018 10:29 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
... In interpreting your response, it does seem as if you do not care about the accuracy of dating...
That's exactly the opposite of what I've understood from what edge wrote.
In my field, accurate dating is paramount in trying to predict what will be found underground. Modern dating systems work extraordinarily well.
Maybe you, personally, do have a big problem in you trying to find "The Truth (Pty. Ltd)" instead of looking for models providing the best explanations for what is observed (the truth)? Maybe it's because you don't know what scientific methods involve?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by DOCJ, posted 01-22-2018 10:29 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


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


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

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

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 79 of 222 (827339)
01-23-2018 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:27 AM


Re: Questions
Since you imply that you care about the truth you won’t have any problem providing evidence that electrical currents affect the relevant decays and that there was sufficient current to significantly affect the age, will you ?
So, go ahead. Enlighten us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:27 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 80 of 222 (827340)
01-23-2018 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:27 AM


Re: Questions
I looked at you first link. A few sentences in it says:
Your source writes:
...The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought...
Nonsense. We can disregard your link. The Universe is expanding at an accellerating rate.
In the meantime, why do all the major exploration and mining companies I've ever worked with accept radiometric dating as accurate? Are they all stupid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:27 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:16 AM Pressie has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


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


Re: Questions
3 links provided

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

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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 82 of 222 (827343)
01-23-2018 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 6:07 AM


Re: Questions
The first one was economical with the truth. No reason to look at the rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:07 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


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


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

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

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 84 of 222 (827346)
01-23-2018 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 6:07 AM


Re: Questions
Only one link was provided at the time I started to reply and that did not address the issue.
The second is just a forum discussion about C14 dating and fails to deal with the fact that C14 dates have been calibrated against a good many samples of known date. When it starts by citing just such a calibration. And doesn’t offer any real evidence either. Not that a forum discussion is a good source at all.
And the third is a video, which I don’t bother with. But given that neither of the first two comes close to qualifying I doubt that I am missing anything. If the video has anything good I am sure you can point to a written source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:07 AM DOCJ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2018 6:39 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 85 of 222 (827347)
01-23-2018 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by PaulK
01-23-2018 6:31 AM


Re: Questions
PaulK, the person is trying to address the believers. They will believe whatever he says regardless what is shown in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2018 6:31 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 222 (827348)
01-23-2018 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 6:16 AM


Re: Questions
All of the evidence so far seems to show that you are not looking for the truth but rather looking for anything that will support your desired results. The links you provide are great evidence that that is your sole goal.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:16 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:46 AM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 222 (827349)
01-23-2018 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by JonF
01-22-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Questions
The absolute constancy of the decay rates of relevant isotopes under terrestrial conditions is as well established as the atomic constituents of a water molecule. The processes that govern decay are fundamental to the operation of the Universe, and changes would leave unmistakable traces in an astonishing number of places. We've looked; they aren't there. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct01.html, The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: August 2006.
Thanks for that. I think I can use it in The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 3)
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 70 by JonF, posted 01-22-2018 3:57 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 222 (827351)
01-23-2018 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 6:07 AM


Re: Questions
3 links provided
This is a rule violation:
rules
quote:
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references
Please take what you think is the best argument from your links, present it and defend it.
Otherwise people will dismiss them as they have already done, one their weakest argument.
If you can't defend it then it must not be that good ...
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 81 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:07 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 222 (827352)
01-23-2018 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ
01-22-2018 10:29 PM


Re: Questions
... Which is fine but I'm more interested with the truth. And if you represent the main way of thinking I can definitely see why there is a debate. Christians who are in seek mode are looking to conclude in truth not on bias with regards to dating. ...
"Truth" (TRVTH, Truth, truth) is a bad measure, it is too malleable to personal bias and belief. In effect there is no such thing. And that's the truth. As I see it.
Curiously, I prefer reality and the relationship of our knowledge to that reality. Again, reality is a squirmy object, just when we think we know something, a new finding throws it in doubt ... because all we can do with science is approximate reality: theories are explanations that approximate reality to the best of our knowledge, and as falsified concepts are discarded those approximations become closer to what must be reality.
... (People) Christians who are in seek mode are looking to conclude in truth not on bias with regards to dating. ...
In this regard, any belief system (in a person's worldview) that relies on denial of certain known evidence is less based on reality than one that doesn't.
The goal then, for personal beliefs (for "truth,") is to find beliefs that don't need to deny any objective empirical evidence, discarding those beliefs that are falsified by objective empirical evidence.
Thus we can discard a young earth (as you have done), and we can discard a global flood, accept they are allegories at best, and go from there.
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 75 by DOCJ, posted 01-22-2018 10:29 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


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


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

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

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024