Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 1:16 AM
335 online now:
Coyote, DC85, NoNukes, PaulK (4 members, 331 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,882 Year: 25,488/21,208 Month: 1,115/2,338 Week: 236/450 Day: 1/55 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 76 of 153 (573901)
08-13-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:29 PM


There are many obvious contrasts between, on the one hand, people who accept physical evidence as truth (because observation of the evidence is replicable and reliable and yields accurate predictions), and on the other hand, people who deliberately ignore, reject, deny or distort physical evidence (because they consider religious dogma to be more valuable somehow).

Perhaps the most striking contrast is in the amount of self-contradiction that can be found when these two types of people are expressing their viewpoints. The objectivists (methodological naturalists -- i.e. scientists) tend to show self-contradiction only as a means of expressing irony and sarcasm, but the dogmatists show it in their direct and sincere assertions.

Here's a simple demonstration in the views expressed by "archaeologist":

archaeologist writes:

... God wants the truth to be told ...

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.

Now, obviously, "the when" actually counts as part of "the truth" about things. Ask anyone who has to spend real money on finding new petroleum reserves. Doing this in an economically feasible way these days requires having a lot of knowledge about when various geological strata were deposited, which happens to correlate consistently with finding the fossil remains of particular species of plant and animal life (many of which are currently extinct). It's also remarkably and predictably consistent with the particular radiometric properties of materials found in the strata. And owing to the apparently immutable laws of physics, biology and geology, the relationships among these various pieces of evidence entail that some rather long periods of time have elapsed, on the order of many millions of years.

If you don't accept that entailment, you'll fail in the business of drilling for oil, because you'll never understand where you should (and should not) be looking for it.

So according to you, archaeologist, God wants the truth to be told -- which would properly include "the when" -- and geologists are doing quite well in that regard, much to the delight of the people who own stock in oil companies.

And also according to you, "the when" is not important, because God chose not to tell us about it specifically in His Revealed Word(*), and therefore, God doesn't want us to know about that, and we shouldn't even be asking about it, let alone actually learning about it successfully on our own and blabbing about it to the oil companies -- that is, telling the truth about it, which is what God wants us to do.

Oh wait... do you mean to say that all those geologists are actually lying to the oil companies? That would require a very strange definition for "lying".

Well anyway, I guess that's all clear enough now. Thanks.

*Footnote about that "Revealed Word" thing: Your "system" of belief, which you are using as the rationale for rejecting observed facts, is based on a translation of a translation of a redaction of a selective compilation drawn from a larger set of letters and varied other texts, some of which didn't actually survive long enough to be available for selection, and others of which were simply discarded at one or another point several hundred years after the alleged time of Christ. Of course none of the texts -- certainly not the ones actually chosen for inclusion in the Christian Bible -- were written during the alleged time of Christ. Some sections (the OT) were written long before, and others (the NT) were written dozens or hundreds of years after. If that's the basis of your authority, I'm sorry, but it's awfully tenuous, to say the least.

Just the issues involved with having a translation of a translation can be a show-stopper for anyone trying to assert a particular interpretation as "the one true version." Human language just doesn't work that way, no matter what you say about inspiration, and the countless dogmatic schisms within Christianity are ample proof of the problem.

BTW, you might not have noticed how this religious-dogma-causes-self-contradiction stuff actually stems from the Bible itself. For an easy start on this, there are lots of entertaining and informative videos at YouTube about contradictions in the Bible.

Enjoy.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:29 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:07 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 153 (573911)
08-13-2010 4:55 AM


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

1. it was a newspaper article and i am still looking for it
2. if you think i lie then do not engage me.

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.

you must have a lot of funding as c-14 dating is expensive and usually saved for the best candidates and i think i will stop looking for that article given your attitude.

but while i was searching i did find this:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

More recently others have tried to duplicate Libby's measurements with more modern equipment and much greater accuracy. They concluded that the out-of-balance condition is real and even worse than Libby believed. Radiocarbon is forming 28% - 37% faster than it is decaying. [65]

i haven't read it all so i do not have any comments to make and i would like to get a link to libby's notes on the decay rate.

Why can't we find a single dinosaur fossil that is found above rocks that date to 60 million years before present

many reasons and the main one is the bad dating of the rock. i just watched a discovery channel show for kids and guess what, they found a dinosaur skeleton near the surface so i highly doubt your statement.

seems that they are above those rocks after all.

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 wasn't written by humans. sure they may have penned the words but they were not the authors

The bible is a combination of hearsay testimony & bronze age mythology

scientific prove please and be specific not general.


Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 9:16 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2010 9:41 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 1:01 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 153 (573924)
08-13-2010 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Otto Tellick
08-13-2010 1:40 AM


BTW, you might not have noticed how this religious-dogma-causes-self-contradiction stuff actually stems from the Bible itself. For an easy start on this, there are lots of entertaining and informative videos at YouTube about contradictions in the Bible.

there are no contradictions in the Bible. such are raised by people who are unbelievers and do not grasp what the Bible is saying and who refuse to listen to any explanation clearing the matter up.

it is easy to claim their are contradictions but difficult to accept the truthful explanations when that truth shreds your arguments.

so far the majorityof you all have done nothing but posted arguments i have heard and answered for years. your reactions are the exact same as other atheists and anti-bible people and you have done nothing new.

since this is a science forum , here is a challenge to you:

post all the archaeological and scientific discoveries that prove the bible false. they have to be real, sans conjecture, wishful thinking, assumption, hypothesis and theory.

plus i am waiting for the links to libby's papers dealing with the decline rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-13-2010 1:40 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 7:51 AM archaeologist has responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 79 of 153 (573937)
08-13-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 6:07 AM


archaeologist writes:

there are no contradictions in the Bible.


Yes there are.

such are raised by people who are unbelievers and do not grasp what the Bible is saying and who refuse to listen to any explanation clearing the matter up.

What does it mean then, when the bible says one thing in one place, and something different in another?

it is easy to claim their are contradictions but difficult to accept the truthful explanations when that truth shreds your arguments.

Of course it is easy to claim there are contradictions, that's because there are. That's the same reason it is hard to accept the "truthful" explanations, there are contradictions afterall, and they are hard to just ignore.

so far the majorityof you all have done nothing but posted arguments i have heard and answered for years. your reactions are the exact same as other atheists and anti-bible people and you have done nothing new.

And yet it seems you haven't learned anything from that. Of course we don't do anything new, your assertions are just as wrong now as they were then.

since this is a science forum , here is a challenge to you:

Ooh.

post all the archaeological and scientific discoveries that prove the bible false. hey have to be real, sans conjecture, wishful thinking, assumption, hypothesis and theory.

Like you won't claim they are just that, regardless of what we provide.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:07 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 7:59 AM Huntard has responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 153 (573939)
08-13-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Huntard
08-13-2010 7:51 AM


Yes there are.

chapters and verses please.

yet it seems you haven't learned anything from that. Of course we don't do anything new, your assertions are just as wrong now as they were then.

yet i have learned something and that is the anti-bible crowd are backing the wrong horse.

remember i have found the truth and do not need to search any more.

Ooh.

didn't think you would do it and i do not think anyone else here will either buti have to remain scientific which is hard to do given that origins is about faith not scientific evidence. same with the dating systems.

you can date all you want but just becuas eyou or your fellow scientists declare them accurate and correct doesn't mean they are. one has to consider the source and isn't it convenient that the people supporting evoolution also built the dating systems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 7:51 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 8:09 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Larni, posted 08-13-2010 8:43 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 81 of 153 (573940)
08-13-2010 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 7:59 AM


archaeologist writes:

chapters and verses please.


I'll get back to you this evening (my time).

yet i have learned something and that is the anti-bible crowd are backing the wrong horse.

No we're not, you are.

remember i have found the truth and do not need to search any more.

You have been deluded, and only think you have.

didn't think you would do it and i do not think anyone else here will either buti have to remain scientific which is hard to do given that origins is about faith not scientific evidence. same with the dating systems.

Why would I do something like that, you're gonna dismiss it anyway, no matter what is provided. You already admitted that whenever science contradicts the bible, you will opt to believe the bible, so what is the point in providing you with examples?

you can date all you want but just becuas eyou or your fellow scientists declare them accurate and correct doesn't mean they are.

Neither does you saying you, the bible or god are accurate make it so.

one has to consider the source and isn't it convenient that the people supporting evoolution also built the dating systems.

Since dating is about physics and not biology, I fail to see where evolution comes in here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 7:59 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 08-13-2010 8:34 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 82 of 153 (573941)
08-13-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Huntard
08-13-2010 8:09 AM


Huntard writes:

archaeologist writes:

chapters and verses please.


I'll get back to you this evening (my time).

Could you please take this part of the discussion to a thread over in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum?

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Edited by Admin, : Pah!


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 8:09 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 83 of 153 (573945)
08-13-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 7:59 AM


Oops, just seen Percy's note.

Edited by Larni, : Removed as off topic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 7:59 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5292
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 84 of 153 (573952)
08-13-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 4:55 AM


i just watched a discovery channel show for kids and guess what, they found a dinosaur skeleton near the surface so i highly doubt your statement.

Erosion. It is an English word with an actual definition. An actual archaeologist might even be familiar with the definition. You, though, don't seem to be aware of it.

It means the wearing away of rocks/sediments by weather-related processes. It can expose old rocks that were previously buried. Libraries even have books, sometimes with "geology" in the titles, that supply more detail about erosion. This amazing process can even explain how dinosaur fossils can be found, as you saw, near the surface! Try reading one!


"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 77 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 4:55 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:10 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6013
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 85 of 153 (573959)
08-13-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 4:55 AM


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

1. it was a newspaper article and i am still looking for it
2. if you think i lie then do not engage me.


Your creationist sources are lying to you.

And I don't want a newspaper article; I want the original scientific study from a peer reviewed journal.

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.

you must have a lot of funding as c-14 dating is expensive and usually saved for the best candidates and i think i will stop looking for that article given your attitude.


An AMS date currently costs $595, while standard radiometric dating is about half of that. I have used as many as 31 dates on a single archaeological project, and have done about 600 dates so far in my career.

Again, though, you demonstrate you are not a real archaeologist and that you don't know much about the field. My guess is that you dabble in biblical archaeology and not much else.

When we do real archaeology we have budgets to do the necessary research, unlike amateur archaeology which is often poorly funded.

but while i was searching i did find this:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html


I have read this article in the past, and many others like it. It is full of mistakes and misrepresentations. It certainly has fooled you into thinking it is accurate.

Example, right at the beginning the article states:

We all realize that parent radioactive material is transformed into stable daughter products, i.e.

> C-14 ---> C-13 and/or C-12

And of course almost everyone knows that C-14 decays into N14. The unnamed person writing this article doesn't know the first thing about radiocarbon dating!

More recently others have tried to duplicate Libby's measurements with more modern equipment and much greater accuracy. They concluded that the out-of-balance condition is real and even worse than Libby believed. Radiocarbon is forming 28% - 37% faster than it is decaying. [65]

i haven't read it all so i do not have any comments to make and i would like to get a link to libby's notes on the decay rate.

And when was Libby doing his testing? Right around the time they were popping off atomic weapons! Of course the production of C14 was higher! Everyone who deals with radiocarbon dating knows of the problems that caused. Fortunately, we are dating samples which are pre-bomb, and don't have to worry about that problem. But your source doesn't know all of this, and wants to make you the gullible creationist think there are problems with the radiocarbon method.

Just one more example: Your source makes a big deal of the following:

Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer' technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [50]

My prediction is that if more evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain C-14, a major scientific revolution will occur, and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete.

I have read the original article (and I know one of the authors).

This might be of use to creationists if those eleven skeletons were truly ancient, but the old age estimates were done using amino acid racemization dating which has been shown to be highly inaccurate. And how were those skeletons correctly dated? By C14 dating! This article corrected an earlier and faulty dating method. Here is a link to a more detailed examination of the issue:

Link

This is why I want to read the original peer reviewed articles, and don't trust the biased nonsense that creationist websites contain. You shouldn't either. Creationists have no interest in accurate assessments of the various dating methods, nor the knowledge to competently discuss them. They are lying to you.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 4:55 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29441
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 86 of 153 (573963)
08-13-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:31 PM


archaeologist writes:

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.

Guess what. Yet more untruths from you.

Radiometric dating DOES make the assumption that something might have gone wrong with the speedometer or radar gun. That is why multiple methods of dating are used.

To stick with this analogy, the conclusion is checked using the speedometer, the radar gun and someone watching the distance covered and timing it with his stop watch.

Then all the independent results are examined. If the speedometer, the radar gun and the time/distance calculation all give about the same answer then we can be pretty sure it is right. If two of the three agree then we can still have a high level of confidence that the conclusion is right, not quite as high as when all three agree but still pretty high.

BUT WAIT...there's more.

Science goes even further and has several different folk do the dating using the different methods, so what the reality is is that several speedometers, several radar guns and several folk with stop watches all do their thing independently, not knowing what the answer should be.

And guess what.

Time after time the same results are returned.

The earth is old.

The Universe is even older.

Radiometric dating works.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:31 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:24 PM jar has responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 407 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 87 of 153 (573982)
08-13-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Contingent
11-19-2008 3:36 AM


The process of radiological dating has several intrensic flaws, the most glaring of which is that it assumes set levels of the isotopes measured between samples origionally. For example, in U238 dating, the U238 decays into lead. The only problem with dating samples based on the ratio of the two is that lead occurs natrually, and often in the company of uranium and other heavy metals. The ratio of natural lead to uranium is not constant ether, as lead can occur with little or no radiological involvement.
Basically, there is no way of predicting the actual decay time on the remaining U238, as extra natural lead is everywhere and probably with the uranium wherever it may manifest. This same inaccuracy is inherant in all other methods of radiological dating. Nothing says that the levels of carbon 14 are or were constant at any point in history, or that the levels of solar radiation that cause the isotope in the atmosphere were ever constant.

This is not true. It might apply to an elementary first discussion/explanation of radiometric dating but not to actual methods of dating used in practice.
The isochron method does not depend upon knowing the initial concentrations of isotopes originally. In fact it is a method of measuring not only the age
but the original isotope concentrations as well. They fall out when plotting the data as the Y intercept.

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

Carbon 14 is understood to vary with time and is not unknown to the scientific community. That is why it is calibrated against tree rings, etc.

This is brief.. but the OP was a cut and paste..

To archeologist..
If you disagree I will discuss it in more detail IF you do your homework and actually read and demonstrate that you comprehend the references listed.

remember i have found the truth and do not need to search any more.

This is quite a frightening statement. Please start a thread in the religous section of this forum and show from the Bible where such an attitude is supported. Thanks.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : spelling.. slept late..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Contingent, posted 11-19-2008 3:36 AM Contingent has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:12 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 88 of 153 (573987)
08-13-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 4:55 AM


many reasons and the main one is the bad dating of the rock.

How did you establish the "bad dating of the rock"? That doesn't make sense. Let's ignore the date for now. Let's just focus on the isotopes in the rock. Why can't we find a dinosaur above rock that has an isotope ratio consistent with 60 million years of decay as the half lives are measured now? Why is there this correlation between the fossils and the small differences in isotopes in the igneous rocks that surround them?

i just watched a discovery channel show for kids and guess what, they found a dinosaur skeleton near the surface so i highly doubt your statement.

Have you heard of erosion? It's this process where the top layers of rock are worn away revealing older rock. You have heard of this, haven't you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 4:55 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 153 (574029)
08-13-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coragyps
08-13-2010 9:16 AM


Erosion. It is an English word with an actual definition. An actual archaeologist might even be familiar with the definition. You, though, don't seem to be aware of it.

ignoring the insinuating tone, that word explains why that particular poster cannot make the claim that all dinosuar skeletons and bones are found in 60,000,000 rock and dirt. also just because the bones are found there doesn't mean that the dinosuars lived only at that time, remember that very few animals get fossilized and it would be erroneous to make such a generalization.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 9:16 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:25 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 08-13-2010 5:56 PM archaeologist has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 153 (574030)
08-13-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by shalamabobbi
08-13-2010 12:25 PM


If you disagree I will discuss it in more detail IF you do your homework and actually read and demonstrate that you comprehend the references listed.

why would i do what you want? i already comprehend the dating systems and know they are wrong and err too much to be reliable. i also know about talk origins and you are asking me to read bias information that tells you what you want to hear and is not truthful.

put some independent studies out there by non-evolutionists then maybe i might read them. you do not want me putting creatinist material onhere so do not expect me to accept or respect the materials that side with you.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-13-2010 12:25 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by subbie, posted 08-13-2010 5:20 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 6:21 PM archaeologist has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017