Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 4:03 AM
393 online now:
CRR, Faith, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 389 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,294 Year: 9,900/21,208 Month: 2,987/2,674 Week: 411/961 Day: 27/114 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5652
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 61 of 153 (573603)
08-12-2010 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:11 AM


Archaeologist, you have spouted such a stream of mixed-up religious dogma that I'm not going to bother with most of it.

Suffice it to say you are no archaeologist, nor any form of scientist. You are the exact opposite; from your postings you are anti-science and anti-knowledge. You certainly didn't come here to learn anything.

You should end each post with "Amen," because all you are doing is preaching. Perhaps you should try the other forums here, and leave the Science Forum to those who are interested in furthering science and knowledge instead of denying them.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:11 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 153 (573635)
08-12-2010 8:10 AM


Can one not study science and follow God as well?

but it depends. if one does science the secular way then they are not following God but the secular way which means omitting the supernatural and looking for natural answers. one cannot say they believe and follow God if they are following something not of Him.

Certainly, if one believes that God authored the universe one would expect the empirical evidence not to be misleading, but to reveal exactly how God went about creation.

but if the researcher attributes the empirical evidence to the wron g source then you have the problem faced today. it isn't a matter of what the empirical evidence says but how the researcher applies or interprets or attributes it.

Dr. Hawkins wrote years ago in his book A Brief History of Time about the scars in the universe and he thought that those scars were evidence for the big bang. i wrote him with the suggestion that those scars were probably evidence of God's creative power--same evidence two different attributions only 1 can be correct.

now if you take a hard look at the big bang it resembles God's creative power thus the empirical evidence is pointing to God but since people do not want to believe or prove the the Bible correct, they attribute that evidence to some other source.

but to reveal exactly how God went about creation

but we already know how God did it--hebrews 11-- God spoke and it was.

If the evidence strongly suggests that the Earth is old,

by whose calculations though? those who do not believe and do not want the Bible to be correct? how can we trust them for their bias is over-ruling the principle and objective of objectivity. I would love to throw in a lot of Bible verse about deceivement but unless you accept the existence of the devil you will not accept those verses.

isn't a true Christian going to trust the evidence that God put in the ground to not be misleading?

no. a true christian follows and trusts God first, because as i have shown how one reads the evidence determines the direction it is pointing and it takes people willing to be honest to read it right. age is meaningless here but evolutionists make it a vital aspect of their theory but as i have shown in my table example, age doesn't mean soemthing is not new. God put things into place and primed it to be ready for when allof creation was made.

imagine how long it would take to start a car if one had to wait for the gas to start from the gas tank and make its way up to the carbeurator. even though a scientist may say it takes 5 minutes (an example) for the gas to reach the carb from the tank that doesn't mean that gas wasn't in the line already, waiting fo the key to turn. reality, doesn't reflect scientific study because scientific study does not include all the data.

Could not a God-fearing scientist find truth through empirical study?

depends. are they open minded or are the set on looking for just one idea. if they look at the evidence and always attribute the results to evolution then no they won't but if they look at the predictin, the results, and see that many sources are not excluded and start to investigate then yes, they may be able to find the truth.

i remember sitting through one evolutionist lecture, it has been years and he goes (describing the experiment and th eprediction) if evolution is true then such and such will happen. the weakness of that predicitonis evolution may not have been responsible for the result but gets attributed it because of the way the prediction is worded.

The point is that they all agree, despite the different approaches the methods take. Carbon-dating agrees with dendrochronology for instance, yet the two methods of dating have nothing in common!

but just like my international example. all th enations signing could agree on a statement but that still doesn't make the statement true, it just means that they all agree on the statement. years ago, Neitzske claimed God was dead and many independent people jumped on and agreed with him. does that mean God was dead--no. it just means that many people agreed on the statement because they wanted God to be dead and they wanted to be free from His morality.

Say you're a detective attempting to solve a murder mystery. You have 10 independent witnesses claiming they saw the Butler did it. You find fingerprints on the crime scene implicating the Butler. You find DNA evidence implicating the Butler. You find a note implicating the Butler. Bloodstains on the Butler's fingers even turn out to be from the victim.

yet i can still have reasonable doubt here given those pieces of evidence. how? 1. eyewitness accounts are unreliable and could be coached or manipulated; 2. fingerprints could have been placed there at any time, the butler had access to the house or the crime scene due to his duties; 3. DNA can be faked (there were two articles on this recently) and DNA only indicates the presence of blood or the person possibly but doesn't prove the action of murder and doesn't remove the possibility that the DNA was planted; 4. notes canbe faked and part of a frame up; 5. the butler could have walked in and saw the victim and tried to save him/her thus getting bloodon their fingetips.

when you look at things closely you see they are not as open and shut as you think.

But the agreement between all the entirely separate lines of evidence point toward the Butler, giving us near certainty of the killer's identity. It is the same thing with dating methods.

but ou see that 'identitification' is nothing but an assumption based upon general evidence that are not conclusive so you still can be convicting the wrong person. same with dating an artifact except with artifacts there are so many mor emitigating factor sinvolved like corruptionof the sample, or planted items, a screw up in the machine(s). it is not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.

I'd be happy to accept a recent creation if only the physical evidence supported it.

you have to remember that God did ot state a date when He did creation for that is not important. it is the fact that He did it as He said that is. for if He didn't then He lied and sinned and could not be God. and we would not have to live by His teachings or Christ's. before following science think of the ramifications if God did lie, first.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Meldinoor, posted 08-12-2010 6:05 PM archaeologist has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 153 (573638)
08-12-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by shalamabobbi
08-12-2010 6:06 AM


How many religions based on the Bible are there?
If a particular way of interpreting the Bible conflicts with known facts I can know that that interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be false..

this is the only point worth responding to in that whole post.

there are 2. Judaism for the OT, christianity for both the OT & NT. all the rest are based upon man's alterations with a little of the Bible thrown in to make sure the con works.

actually i will respond to one more:

So you are saying that creation is not ex-nihilo but re-organization of existing material, fine. But how does that explain the problem of light taking between 10,000 to 170,000 years to get from the center of the sun to the surface? Was the sun created approximately at the time the earth was created or not? Whether it was created from pre-existing matter or not is irrelevent to my point.

you build a car in 4 days and it is ready to go. all one has to do is turn the key and drive away. a scientist comes up who hates cars and says, you couldn't have built that in 4 days, for it takes 10 days to get the gas from the tank to the carb. who are you going to believe--the car builder or the scientist who hates cars and was not there at the time of construction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-12-2010 6:06 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2010 10:17 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 64 of 153 (573652)
08-12-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


actually you do or it is all hearsay, assumption or conjecture.

So a car's speedometer, or a policeman's radar gun, are "hearsay, assumption or conjecture?" A half-life, whether 30 milliseconds or 1.9 X 10^19 years, is just an expression of a rate.

You don't need to drive 65 miles in an hour to know that your car can travel at 65 miles per hour. Niether do you need to watch a chunk of bismuth for nineteen quintillion years to determine its half-life. It's a rate.

Edited by Coragyps, : fix tag


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5754
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 65 of 153 (573655)
08-12-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:16 AM


christianity for both the OT & NT

Which Christian sect is the correct one?

Let me guess, the one you adhere to?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:16 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6068
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 66 of 153 (573734)
08-12-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:49 AM


i will remain against all dating sytems because they are too fallible to be reliable.

Just wondering what led you to this conclusion. What evidence do you have that all dating systems are too fallible to be reliable?

in other words, they look at only one portion of the equation, the length of time it takes for an object to reach point a from b and do not examine the set up factor.

That is false. For example, when dating zircons with U/Pb techniques you can be very certain of the set up factor. When zircons form they exclude lead but incorporate uranium. This is due the different charges on U and Pb and how they fit into the growing crystal. This can be confirmed in the laboratory. Therefore, any Pb you find in the zircon is due to the decay of U. The decay of U is determined by the laws of physics.

The only way for U/Pb dating to be wrong is if you completely change all the laws of physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:49 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:31 PM Taq has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 153 (573735)
08-12-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:49 AM


keep in mind that science may only be looking at part of the picture in order to hear what it wants to hear.

You write like you're illiterate, but this, at least, made me laugh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:49 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 68 of 153 (573780)
08-12-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:10 AM


archaeologist writes:

but it depends. if one does science the secular way then they are not following God but the secular way which means omitting the supernatural and looking for natural answers. one cannot say they believe and follow God if they are following something not of Him.

So what's the difference between secular and godly science? Secular science omits God, while godly science includes him? So with meteorology then, should scientists insert God in the clouds to explain thunder? I realize that's a silly example, but I really don't see how just about any branch of science would benefit from including God in the equation. We don't use God to explain electricity, or nuclear power, or disease... Why change a winning formula just because we're dealing with the past?

archaeologist writes:

but if the researcher attributes the empirical evidence to the wron g source then you have the problem faced today. it isn't a matter of what the empirical evidence says but how the researcher applies or interprets or attributes it.

"The source of nuclear power is the breaking up of atomic nuclei being barraged by neutrons". I just gave a natural explanation for the source of a natural phenomenon. Am I wrong because I did not include God in the picture?

archaeologist writes:

now if you take a hard look at the big bang it resembles God's creative power thus the empirical evidence is pointing to God but since people do not want to believe or prove the the Bible correct, they attribute that evidence to some other source.

Agreed. The Big Bang was a pretty instantaneous event that appears to have brought our universe, as we know it, into existence. Maybe that is when God spoke the universe into existence. If we attribute the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, to God, are we then doing good science?

archaeologist writes:

but we already know how God did it--hebrews 11-- God spoke and it was

But "the universe was formed at God's command" is not a detailed account of how it happened. I want to know how the universe works, and that means I also have to know what it's been doing up until now.

archaeologist writes:

no. a true christian follows and trusts God first, because as i have shown how one reads the evidence determines the direction it is pointing and it takes people willing to be honest to read it right

When I read the evidence, I do my best to remain objective and honest, which is why I spend time going over creationist interpretations as well. I trust God not to have been trying to fool me when he left that evidence. After all, the physical world is God's first word and revelation for us.

archaeologist writes:

age is meaningless here but evolutionists make it a vital aspect of their theory but as i have shown in my table example, age doesn't mean soemthing is not new. God put things into place and primed it to be ready for when allof creation was made.

The only reason he'd make tree rings for the past 50,000 years, is if he wanted to fool us. He didn't have to make a bunch of extra tree rings in order to "prime" the world.

archaeologist writes:

i remember sitting through one evolutionist lecture, it has been years and he goes (describing the experiment and th eprediction) if evolution is true then such and such will happen. the weakness of that predicitonis evolution may not have been responsible for the result but gets attributed it because of the way the prediction is worded.

What was the specific prediction? Your anecdote isn't worth much unless you can provide the details. The ToE predicted feathered Dinos, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and much more of the fossil record. It also predicted genetic relationships between species, genuses (geni?), families, etc. The theory of evolution could easily be shown wrong if, for instance, a population of rabbits was found to have lived during the cambrian. Or if a mammal with cell walls were ever found.

archaeologist writes:

Neitzske claimed God was dead and many independent people jumped on and agreed with him. does that mean God was dead--no. it just means that many people agreed on the statement because they wanted God to be dead and they wanted to be free from His morality.

But people are not objective! I don't base my beliefs based on popularity. I don't go about simply asking scientists "what do you believe?". I study the material. The objective facts. Dating methods don't bow to peer pressure. Dead trees don't care if their tree rings match the age given by C14 dating. How do you explain it if they do? How do you explain it if they always do, consistently?

archaeologist writes:

when you look at things closely you see they are not as open and shut as you think.

You're right. The case is never closed. But the butler would still be my main suspect in the analogy I gave you. I would, for instance, not go assuming the Colonel did it when all the evidence points to the Butler, unless new evidence, implicating the Colonel and absolving the Butler could be found.

I don't mind that creationist groups like AiG or the Discovery Institute exist, so long as they're actually doing research. Because, who knows? They might actually discover something. Their track record isn't very good, but maybe. But I won't believe something merely because it "could be true". I want evidence that the Colonel did it before I charge him!

archaeologist writes:

I would love to throw in a lot of Bible verse about deceivement but unless you accept the existence of the devil you will not accept those verses.

You don't need to bother with the Bible verses. I've read the Bible cover to cover probably more times than you have. The thing is, if the Devil is deceiving anybody I suspect it must be your side. How else could a handful of intelligent but dishonest people lead such a successful campaign against science?

But merely quoting the Bible and telling each-other that what we believe is deception is not going to get us anywhere in a scientific debate. I want to see some evidence. Where's your evidence that all dating methods are universally flawed? Where's your evidence for a young earth? Where's your evidence that the ToE is founded upon personal bias and deception?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:10 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:29 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 153 (573811)
08-12-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Meldinoor
08-12-2010 6:05 PM


So what's the difference between secular and godly science?

one, it doesn't omit the supernatural and look in the wrong places for answers.

two, it provides answers not more questions or theories

three, it does not bully, mock, lie, mislead, fabricate, et al.

should scientists insert God in the clouds to explain thunder?

no, it tells the truth and describes how it is made. God wants the truth to be told and He wants the glory for HIS work. He does not want the credit given to some imaginary process or explosion.

We don't use God to explain electricity, or nuclear power, or disease...

He created it all and the ways toproduce it on our own so in a sense yes we can use God to explain those things.

The source of nuclear power is the breaking up of atomic nuclei being barraged by neutrons". I just gave a natural explanation for the source of a natural phenomenon. Am I wrong because I did not include God in the picture?

that is not a natural explanation because if that is the way it can be done then God made that possible when He created it. so technically you are not wrong in the explanation, just in crediting the source.

If we attribute the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, to God, are we then doing good science?

leave out the 15 billion year date and you would be on the right track. God doesn't tell us exactly when he created all things, He just simply said 'in the beginning...' meaning the when is not important.

But "the universe was formed at God's command" is not a detailed account of how it happened. I want to know how the universe works, and that means I also have to know what it's been doing up until now.

first off what details can you add to 'He spoke and it was'? learning HOW someone made soemthing is NOT the same thing as learning how it works.

you are free to learn how it works because God would want you to know that but how is already done. if you want to learn HOW HE didit, i donot have the answers for you for we are not given those specifics except 'He spoke and it was' or 'He formed...'

i cannot give you what i do not have.

When I read the evidence, I do my best to remain objective and honest, which is why I spend time going over creationist interpretations as well. I trust God not to have been trying to fool me when he left that evidence. After all, the physical world is God's first word and revelation for us.

be careful of 'interpretations' because we are not told to follow them. we are told that we will know the truth and that the Holy Spirit leads us to the truth. interpretations are merely someone's opinion and are not infallible nor the word of God thus they can be ignored, dismissed, criticized,etc. no matter which side of the fence they come from.

in thinking you are fooled may be a result of listening to a wrong 'interpretation' and not listening to God.

The only reason he'd make tree rings for the past 50,000 years, is if he wanted to fool us. He didn't have to make a bunch of extra tree rings in order to "prime" the world.

no, the tree rings made by His creative work would not fool you BUT their application by secular people may. there is a big difference between what God did and how man uses those items (most of the time)

What was the specific prediction? Your anecdote isn't worth much unless you can provide the details.

Yes i knew that but i was lazy because i would have to go to a website i haven't been to for a couple years and then search and search till i found it and i haven't been motivated to do that yet.

[qs]The ToE predicted feathered Dinos, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and much more of the fossil record.

Dating methods don't bow to peer pressure

um...do you really want to say that? i believe not too long ago the british museum had to recalibrate some c-14 dates because they came up younger than the scientists wanted.

How do you explain it if they do?

coincidence. everyone gets lucky. sometimes things do agree and get it right but such does not exclude or rule out manipulation, conspiracy, fudging, lying and so on. it is not as pure as you would like it to be.

But the butler would still be my main suspect in the analogy I gave you. I would, for instance, not go assuming the Colonel did it when all the evidence points to the Butler, unless new evidence, implicating the Colonel and absolving the Butler could be found.

i would agree with you and add that the butler remaining as a main suspect is still based upon assumption not fact. short of a confession you are still guessing, but it would be an educated guess.

if the Devil is deceiving anybody I suspect it must be your side. How else could a handful of intelligent but dishonest people lead such a successful campaign against science?

you would be wrong on all counts here. it is not science we are opposing but the methodology, the application, the philosophy that powers part of the scientific field.

science can be a good thing if used correctly but as it is designed today and probably for the past 200 years or so, it is not following its own principle of objectivity.

secular scince is completely biased and again i will refer you to dr. ratzsch's book, 'the battle of beginnings' and all of chapter 11 to support that statement. {there are many other examples but that book is handy right now}.

You don't need to bother with the Bible verses.

i could say the same about you and your quoting scientific papers. it is a two way street and you cannot limit one person's sources while using your own.

I want to see some evidence. Where's your evidence that all dating methods are universally flawed?

1. the Bible is evidence and an ancient document whose qualifications i established in another post.

2. what evidence do you want to see that hasn't already been presented to ou by your reading, research and other discussions. keep in mind that the Bible and christianity require faith and there is not going to be a lot of physical evidence to show you.

i told others to go to the nurseries to see gen. 1 in action and they refused to accept it so i am not sure you will either.

3. the dating systems were created by humans, and it is general knowledge that humans are not perfect nor can they construct perfect items. if they could we would not need repairmen.

4. the dating systems all have vulnerabilities, they can't overcome.

5. as i established before, there is no ultimate over-ruling governor like time has to synchronize the dat systems against to make sure they are correct. it is all done on the human level, with the limited human knowledge and data obtained.

6. there is no real way to verify the length of most half-lives and no real way to verify the so called slow down at that half-life.

i hope thatis enough for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Meldinoor, posted 08-12-2010 6:05 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 7:45 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2010 7:46 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 75 by bluescat48, posted 08-13-2010 1:38 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-13-2010 1:40 AM archaeologist has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 153 (573812)
08-12-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taq
08-12-2010 3:30 PM


That is false. For example, when dating zircons with U/Pb techniques you can be very certain of the set up factor. When zircons form they exclude lead but incorporate uranium. This is due the different charges on U and Pb and how they fit into the growing crystal. This can be confirmed in the laboratory. Therefore, any Pb you find in the zircon is due to the decay of U. The decay of U is determined by the laws of physics.

leave it to the anti-creationist to change the example to make a point. the topic was the sun and light reaching the earth not zircons.

So a car's speedometer, or a policeman's radar gun, are "hearsay, assumption or conjecture?

you still have to assume that nothing went wrong with the speedometer or radar gun through usage, natural elements or faulty craftsmanship, to name a few things that could go wrong.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:30 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 7:39 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2010 9:02 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 86 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 9:55 AM archaeologist has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6068
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 71 of 153 (573815)
08-12-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:31 PM


leave it to the anti-creationist to change the example to make a point. the topic was the sun and light reaching the earth not zircons.

The topic of the thread is Uranium Dating.

you still have to assume that nothing went wrong with the speedometer or radar gun through usage, natural elements or faulty craftsmanship, to name a few things that could go wrong.

Can you name one measuring instrument where this isn't the case? Should we throw out every measurement ever made in science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:31 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6068
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 72 of 153 (573819)
08-12-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:29 PM


one, it doesn't omit the supernatural and look in the wrong places for answers.

Then please describe a scientific experiment that includes God as one of the experimental variables.

three, it does not bully, mock, lie, mislead, fabricate, et al.

You do realize that it was Galileo that was put under house arrest, not the Pope.

eave out the 15 billion year date and you would be on the right track.

Why?

be careful of 'interpretations' because we are not told to follow them.

Then we will gladly ignore your interpretations of the Bible.

no, the tree rings made by His creative work would not fool you BUT their application by secular people may.

Phillip Henry Gosse, is that you?

Getting back to Uranium dating . . .

I have a question for you. Why can't we find a single dinosaur fossil that is found above rocks that date to 60 million years before present. For now, just ignore the date if you want. Let's just call it "what scientists consider to be 60 million years worth of Uranium decay". Can you explain this? Why is there a correlation between the fossils found and the tiny differences in isotope ratios of the rocks that surround them? Can you explain this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:29 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5652
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 73 of 153 (573820)
08-12-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:29 PM


Citation please
i believe not too long ago the british museum had to recalibrate some c-14 dates because they came up younger than the scientists wanted.

Citation please.

I would like to learn what the original paper stated, not what some creationist wants us to believe they stated.

I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work as an archaeologist, and I have yet to see a young earth creationist present an honest assessment of radiocarbon dating. They typically gripe about the assumptions that radiocarbon experts make then bring in totally imaginary things like a vapor or water canopy and a global flood to make the dates fit their requirements. The fact that there is no evidence for such a canopy or a flood doesn't seem to bother them as long as the dates can be manipulated to fit their beliefs.

Any scientist who engaged in such behavior would be ostracized, and a few have been.

And as for recalibrating dates, all dates are calibrated to account for several factors (atmospheric variation, isotopic fractionation, reservoir effect, etc.). The calibrations are done to improve the accuracy of each date. Occasionally the calibration methods are refined so dates are often recalibrated using the most recent calibration curves or Delta-R estimates to increase their accuracy.

So please, a citation for what the British Museum folks did.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:29 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 74 of 153 (573848)
08-12-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:31 PM


you still have to assume that nothing went wrong with the speedometer or radar gun through usage, natural elements or faulty craftsmanship, to name a few things that could go wrong.

Sure, things can "go wrong." But nobody has yet found, say, a sample of uranium-235 to decay at a rate inconsistent with the rate expressed by a half-life of 703 million years. And there is rather a fair bit of uranium-235 in use around the world in power reactors. I do not need to assume that speedometers and radar guns routinely and usually "go wrong."


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:31 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1571 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 75 of 153 (573900)
08-13-2010 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:29 PM


3. the dating systems were created by humans, and it is general knowledge that humans are not perfect nor can they construct perfect items. if they could we would not need repairmen.

Which should speak wonders for your bible which was written by humans and it is general knowledge that humans are not perfect nor can they construct perfect items. Thus by your own admission the bible cannot be perfect.

the Bible is evidence and an ancient document whose qualifications i established in another post.

The bible is a combination of hearsay testimony & bronze age mythology. It is only evidence of what early civilized men believed.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:29 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017