Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Feedback about reliability of dating
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6317 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 31 of 77 (365874)
11-24-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
11-17-2006 9:04 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
I do not fully understand who is correct on dating, but as a creationist I tend to be biased. I hear that radioactive dating usually generates multiple dates, and the correct date is chosen if it agrees with geological dates (does this make sense?). I also understand that dating methods usually rely on 3 assumptions;
1-constant radioactive decay
2-parent/daughter relationships
3-contamination/leaking
From these assumptions alone it seems that dating can be extremely biased, if dating results do not agree, tweak a few of these valuse to suit your dates.
There is a RATE (Radioisotopes and the age of the earth) team out there to 'investigate', now these are creationists (of course, why would evolutionists want to undermine their own methods). So at the moment the research will appear heavily biased. I just hope once the research is finished, some evolutionists opinions can be collected on this.
"RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds. Since 14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that 14C is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column."
"Dr. Andrew Snelling (Ph.D. in geology) reported on the topic of radiohalos (tiny spheres of discolored crystal produced by the decay of radioactive material at their center) and fission tracks. His research strongly indicates that uranium must have decayed much more quickly in the past”an independent confirmation of accelerated decay."
quotes from RATE Research ResultsFatal Blow to Billions of Years | Answers in Genesis
These are seemingly powerful evidence, but until these folks are done their research and evolutionist have been given the chance to confirm this, most of this is debatable.
This is just exciting news for creationists and gives us( for those Christians who need it) more reason to doubt evolutionists when they oppose the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2006 9:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 11:05 PM Confidence has replied

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6317 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 33 of 77 (365895)
11-24-2006 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
11-24-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
Most of their "work" has already been refuted by scientists.
You are talking as if no creationists can be scientists. This in itself is ignorant and lends discredit to your position as an evolutionist. For there are plenty of scientists who are creationists. And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand. Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions.
The article/online book you pointed me to is long, and it will be a while for me to read it. But I look forward to see what it has to say.
Until then.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 11:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by anglagard, posted 11-25-2006 12:46 AM Confidence has not replied
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2006 10:57 AM Confidence has replied
 Message 37 by iceage, posted 11-26-2006 3:38 AM Confidence has not replied

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6317 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 36 of 77 (365991)
11-25-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
11-25-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Real Age versus falsified concepts
In spite of this refutation, the "RATE" group is proceeding and still soliciting funds from creationists to continue this invalidated "work" -- that makes this "work" a scam and not science, no matter whether they have a degree or not.
How this makes sense to you is beyond me. How are science and scams differentiated by funds alone?
In any case, these guys ARE conducting scientific experiments (which require funds, since the government only funds experiments which are in agreement with evolution/big bang, it is hard for creationists to come up with money, and I realize that creationists are not the only scientists who run into these problems but other scientists who deny the big bang or the ones who question that evolutionary processes alone could bring about life as we know it) to show that radioactive decay have changed dramatically in the past. Now, this is science only if other scientists are able to reproduce the results they come up with. So until they come to a conclusion all we can do is either support their research, or just dismiss it as desperate creationists grasping for straws as they fall down their slopes of ignorance.
Besides this research is an attempt to attack the WHOLE concept of dating, not just a particular case.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
See Open Letter on Cosmology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2006 10:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2006 12:11 PM Confidence has replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 8:36 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6317 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 39 of 77 (366141)
11-26-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coragyps
11-26-2006 12:11 PM


Re: Real Age versus falsified concepts
Ummmm....Answers in Genesis has just about finished their $25,000,000 "creation museum" up by Cinncinnati. Doesn't sound like chicken feed....
lol, I guess I stand corrected then? It is just that not all projects go as smoothly as that one. But its not just us creationists that I was talking about.

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.
Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2006 12:11 PM Coragyps 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