Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 3:13 AM
282 online now:
Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 278 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,408 Year: 29,014/21,208 Month: 1,080/1,847 Week: 3/452 Day: 3/115 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 91 of 136 (619922)
06-13-2011 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 4:52 AM


aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Chuck77 writes:

If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.
Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?

This sounds fishy, as well. Dr Schweitzer has been the person who initiated research on soft dinosaur tissue. You, Chuck77, brought it to the attention of people participating on this on this forum, but you’ve never heard about the researcher who discovered it? Weird.

Educated paleontologists on this forum have actually studied her research. All those examples were fossilized. The lesson is that specialists know about her research and about her.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 4:52 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 3:30 AM Pressie has responded

  
Crazynutsx
Junior Member (Idle past 1807 days)
Posts: 11
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 05-19-2011


Message 92 of 136 (619957)
06-13-2011 1:52 PM


hovind
why do people constantly use the excuse, oh he's in prison now

What!?, so that means his material wasnt good ?

Ofcourse it was he had lots of valid points in his arguements

http://creationvsevolution.freeforums.org


Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2011 2:02 PM Crazynutsx has not yet responded
 Message 98 by dwise1, posted 06-13-2011 3:42 PM Crazynutsx has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 93 of 136 (619962)
06-13-2011 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Crazynutsx
06-13-2011 1:52 PM


Re: hovind
Oh for fuck's sake, now you're just a dirty rotten troll spammer.

Let you be banned!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Crazynutsx, posted 06-13-2011 1:52 PM Crazynutsx has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5299
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 94 of 136 (619963)
06-13-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Pressie
06-13-2011 8:48 AM


Pressie, that's rather an impressive debunking. No wonder Peczis/Woodmorappe is also known as "Whatmorecrap."

And welcome to EvC!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 8:48 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 12:29 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2207 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 95 of 136 (619969)
06-13-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ?????
03-06-2003 10:05 AM


????? writes:

With "half lifes" and other chemicals, we have a pretty acurate way of dating. And yes it is very accurate though people have been saying how carbon dating isn't good. It is. Well back to my question, How do you explain the age of the dinosaurs? according to the bible the earth isn't near a million years of age much more a couple billion.
Just a question...
?????

I'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate.

"Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/05/110518121227.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ?????, posted 03-06-2003 10:05 AM ????? has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2011 3:13 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 97 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2011 3:28 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 1:11 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 96 of 136 (619970)
06-13-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 3:03 PM


Carbon-14 dating
I'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate.

"Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/05/110518121227.htm

Sorry, scientists don't date rocks with Carbon-14 dating. That technique goes back only about 50,000 years and must be applied to something what was once alive (bone, shell, plant material, etc.).

Rocks are dated using other radiometric tests.

If you want to comment on science, it is best to learn something about it first as you are bound to run into folks who have learned something.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 3:03 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by JonF, posted 06-13-2011 4:12 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 97 of 136 (619973)
06-13-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 3:03 PM


Carbon Dating Rocks
'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate.

I hope you're not suggesting that radiocarbon dating is applied to non-organic, very old rocks. That would show a complete ignorance of the subject.

Do you know where, why and how radiocarbon dating is used and its level of accuracy when appropriately applied?

[abe] Disregard. Coyote beat me to it.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 3:03 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3042
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 98 of 136 (619975)
06-13-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Crazynutsx
06-13-2011 1:52 PM


Re: hovind
How is the fact that he's in federal prison for flagrant tax fraud being "constantly used as an excuse"? If anything, he's probably using it as an excuse for not being able to respond to the problems with his claims.

Ofcourse it was he had lots of valid points in his arguements

You mean like his totally bogus solar-mass-loss claim? Or like the leap-second "the earth's rotation is slowing down at an incredibly inflated rate" claim? Oh, yeah, you were going to contact the sites that repeat that claim in order to inform them that they're wrong. How's that project progressing?

One mind-boggling claim is his digital watch in a mine analogy, in which he's basically saying that the age of that mine is limited to the youngest feature in it (eg, a digital watch whose battery is still good), thus the age of Niagara Falls or the Mississippi river delta means that the earth itself can be no older than they are. So do you think that's a "valid point"?

About 10 years ago, Answers in Genesis printed an article listing bogus claims that creationists should not use. Hovind wrote an angry rebuttal to that article, because he still used most of those bogus claims, so they had to respond that those claims are indeed bogus and that he should not use them.

The man would regurgitate any and all claims he encountered. His presentations were PowerPoint Gish Gallops. He would repeatedly present himself to his audiences as an expert in science and math, when his actual knowledge in those fields are minimal. One of the greatest difficulties that his debate opponents have with him is that his understanding of science is so substandard that they can't have any kind of intelligent discussion with him.

No, his material wasn't good. And his being in prison now has nothing to do with it. His material is just not any good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Crazynutsx, posted 06-13-2011 1:52 PM Crazynutsx has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4001
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 99 of 136 (619980)
06-13-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Coyote
06-13-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Carbon-14 dating
Coyote writes:

I'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate.

"Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/05/110518121227.htm

Sorry, scientists don't date rocks with Carbon-14 dating. That technique goes back only about 50,000 years and must be applied to something what was once alive (bone, shell, plant material, etc.).

Rocks are dated using other radiometric tests.

If you want to comment on science, it is best to learn something about it first as you are bound to run into folks who have learned something.

Actually, what he refers to does not involve 14C dating but does involve carbon, and is very interesting. The researchers looked at carbon particles found in metamorphic rock that is 3.8 to 4.2 billion years old. These particles have an isotopic composition and structure that indicate the presence of life, and are often cited as evidence for life on Earth being 3.8 to 4.2 billion years old. However, these researchers applied new techniques:

quote:
The new approach relies upon a variety of microscopy and spectroscopy methods to characterize intact micro-fabricated cross-sections of crystalline graphite removed from the rock samples.

They concluded that the carbon particles are younger than the rock:

quote:
"The characteristics of the poorly crystalline graphite within the samples are not consistent with the metamorphic history of the rock," said Boston College Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences Dominic Papineau, a co-author of the report. "The carbon in the graphite is not as old as the rock. That can only ring a bell and require us to ask if we need to reconsider earlier studies."

I don't know the details, I can't access the primary source. But it's totally irrelevant to 14C dating, as you knew, but as Mazzy should have known but didn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2011 3:13 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by fearandloathing, posted 06-13-2011 4:59 PM JonF has responded

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1761 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 100 of 136 (619998)
06-13-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by JonF
06-13-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Carbon-14 dating
They concluded that the carbon particles are younger than the rock:

quote:
Hudson Bay region shows carbonaceous particles are millions of years younger than the rock in which they're found, pointing to the likelihood that the carbon was mixed in with the metamorphic rock later than the rock's earliest formation -- estimated to be 3.8 to 4.2 billion years ago.

I found it interesting also, but is a few million years much when we are talking about something that is 4 billion years old? It is a new technique also, maybe there may be problems with it.

The article never says how much the dating difference was, is there an acceptable amount of error in something 4 billion years old, and if so would a few million years fall within that accepted amount of error? All it says is millions of years difference, which could mean a few or 10, 100, 500???...


"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by JonF, posted 06-13-2011 4:12 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by JonF, posted 06-14-2011 2:17 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 101 of 136 (620061)
06-14-2011 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Coragyps
06-13-2011 2:17 PM


Thanks. Coragyps!

It's always easy to debunk creationists, as they only have one method: deceiving by outright lying. They project their way of thinking on others, because they think that everyone is as ignorant (or plain stupid) as they are themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2011 2:17 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Mazzy, posted 06-15-2011 5:30 PM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 102 of 136 (620065)
06-14-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 3:03 PM


Mazzy, could you explain to us how the article you refered to is related to carbon dating?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 3:03 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 136 (620086)
06-14-2011 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pressie
06-13-2011 9:28 AM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
pressie writes:

Chuck77 writes:
If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.
Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?

pressie writes:

This sounds fishy, as well. Dr Schweitzer has been the person who initiated research on soft dinosaur tissue. You, Chuck77, brought it to the attention of people participating on this on this forum, but you’ve never heard about the researcher who discovered it? Weird.

first of all, you have me quoting something I never said. Dr Adequate said "If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it." NOT ME.

Why do YOU find it "fishy" that I've never heard of her before AND that I did not know she used to be a YEC? In the ARTICLE I provided for the forum (From which I did not do a search on the authors entire past) NOWHERE in the article does she state that she used to be a YEC. Read it...

So, in short, it seems you have MISquoted me AND acused me of lying for no good reason. Pressie, it seems you lack reading comprehension skills and in doing so misrepresent others comments. Hopefully the forum can see thru this blunder of yours and not attribute it to me.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 9:28 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Son, posted 06-14-2011 4:04 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 4:41 AM Chuck77 has responded

Son
Member (Idle past 1446 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 104 of 136 (620092)
06-14-2011 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 3:30 AM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
If you look at your original message, the part from DrAdequate is not in quote so it looks like you wrote it, I guess that's where the confusion is coming from(there's the "[qs=DrA]" missing at the start of your original message).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 3:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 105 of 136 (620095)
06-14-2011 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 3:30 AM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
No, Chuck77

I did mess up the quote function on the first quote and included someone else’s comments with yours. This happened because the quotes in original message were incorrect. I apologize for that.

I continue to find it very strange that you’ve referred to an article written on soft dinosaur tissue, where the name of the researcher, Dr. Schweitzer, is prominently mentioned several times, but then you claim you’ve never of heard of her before. You, yourself wrote that you’ve never heard of her before, here:

Chuck77 writes:

Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?

Did you mean that you’ve never heard of her before you read that article?

She’s been working for quite a few years now. In fact, I remember reading one of her articles in 2005. That’s why it is unbelievable that a creationist can claim, in 2011, that he’s never heard of her before. Creationists have continually been distorting her research for years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 3:30 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 06-14-2011 4:59 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 108 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 5:40 AM Pressie has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017