Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 7:22 PM
368 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, Tangle (7 members, 361 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,870 Year: 21,476/21,208 Month: 1,909/2,326 Week: 364/881 Day: 82/107 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
subbie
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 91 of 153 (574031)
08-13-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:12 PM


Please, just explain one thing to me.

Why is it that virtually the entire scientific establishment, many of whom worship the same god that you do, accepts the accuracy of everything that you are arguing against?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:12 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:33 PM subbie has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 153 (574032)
08-13-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
08-13-2010 9:55 AM


Time after time the same results are returned.

The earth is old.

i generally ignore you as you just post the party line and present no legitimate evidence to support your case. but created with age does not mean God is lying to people, it means that that was the best place to start thus the secular dating systems fail to take this mitigating factor into account.

remember my example of the table and the tablemaker, it fails a little because God didn't use old material but the gist is on point. if the scientific sensors are geared to analyze one aspect then it is too limited to grasp the whole picture and present the true date.

calibrating against tree rings does not make the date correct, it just means that you got like minded people to agree with your assessment, much like you would accuse me of doing if i presented many creationist papers in support of my arguments.
you cannot have it both ways,either my information in support is as valid as yours is for you or neither can be used because both are biased and do not paint the true picture, except with christians, {for the most part and i will stipulate that there are SOME creationists out there who will fudge details} we generally present the truth.

now concerning the age, as i havesaid, God did not say WHEN the earth was created andwhen God keeps a secret it is impossible for anyone to find out what it really is. science cannot discover it because origins is outside of its scope and not part of its authority and because it has no way to verify that it is correct.

i do not agree with the 6,000 year date but i do not agree with the old earth theories either, i do not know when the earth and universe were created because if you will note, human time was created AFTER the earth and universe, rendering any determination of age impossible.

science is not correct and neither is the 6,000 year old date, which by the way was claimed by a roman catholic bishop who didnot know God thus his date is as useless as the evolutionary one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 9:55 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:34 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 5:52 PM archaeologist has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7043
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 93 of 153 (574034)
08-13-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:10 PM


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.

How so?

also just because the bones are found there doesn't mean that the dinosuars lived only at that time,

Then why don't we find any dinosaur bones from other times? Why do we find this correlation between dinosaur bones and the ratio of isotopes in the surrounding rocks? Can you explain this or not?

If radiometric dating is as awful as you suggest then why don't we find rabbits in between igneous rocks that date to 3 billion years old? Why don't we find dinosaurs above rocks that date to 100,000 years before present? Why do we consistently get a relationship between small differences in the make up of igneous rocks and the fossils around them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:10 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:50 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 153 (574035)
08-13-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by subbie
08-13-2010 5:20 PM


Why is it that virtually the entire scientific establishment, many of whom worship the same god that you do, accepts the accuracy of everything that you are arguing against?

asked and answered but i will tell you one more time: people have free choice and they get to choose whether to follow God or not, believe Him or not thus it is very unlikely that those who reject the Bible will accept biblical data.

why would those who have staked their lives trying to prove an alternative true, side with teh Biblical data?

and one point, it is not 'virtually the whole scientifi community' there are a great number who do not accept evolutionary dating and accept the anti-evolutinary side of theargument.

P.S. i do not think nor accept theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists as christian. you cannot have a loving relationship with someone you call a liar and said got it wrong.

also as an aside, wich kind of God would you want to serve--one that demonstrates His power for all to see which shows that no one is greater and stronger than He or a god who is incapable of such feats and can be seen as weak, a liar and unable to do anything?

which one would you feel the most secure with?

that is a scientific question as it appeals to your logical and rational side.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by subbie, posted 08-13-2010 5:20 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:39 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 98 by subbie, posted 08-13-2010 5:50 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7043
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 95 of 153 (574036)
08-13-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:24 PM


i generally ignore you as you just post the party line and present no legitimate evidence to support your case.

Then here is the evidence. On this page you can find dozens of meteorites that have been dated using a multitude of different techniques and isotope pairs and they all return nearly the same date. Can you explain why this is?

calibrating against tree rings does not make the date correct, it just means that you got like minded people to agree with your assessment, much like you would accuse me of doing if i presented many creationist papers in support of my arguments.

No, it means that you have empirical evidence for the past 14C concentrations in the atmosphere. These tree rings also correlate with CO2 captured in annual ice layers and for organic debris in annual lake varves. All of these data sets have been taken from multiple continents and multiple scientists. They all agree. How is it possible for tree rings, ice layers, and lake varves to all return the same wrong number? How are they all wrong in the same way? How are bristlecone pines in north america wrong in the same way oaks in europe are? How is it possible for lake varves in Japan to be wrong in the same way that ice layers in Antarctica are wrong? How does this work?

science cannot discover it because origins is outside of its scope and not part of its authority and because it has no way to verify that it is correct.

Why can't we use evidence that exists in the world today to reconstruct what happened in the past? You have heard of forensic science, have you not?

If you were on a jury and the prosecution demonstrated that the defendant's bloody fingerprints, DNA, fibers, shoe prints, and tire tracks were on and around the murder victim would you find the defendant not guilty because there was no eyewitness? yes/no? Afterall, science is not allowed to look into the origin of things, so no one can use science to figure out the origin of those fingerprints on the murder victim, right?

i do not agree with the 6,000 year date but i do not agree with the old earth theories either,

So what kind of geologic formation would convince you that the Earth is old? Any? Or is your position a dogmatic one?

human time was created AFTER the earth and universe, rendering any determination of age impossible.

Rocks were made before humans, so why can't we use them to determine how long the Earth has been around? Why are we not allowed to use evidence in the present to reconstruct the past?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:24 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:22 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7043
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 96 of 153 (574037)
08-13-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:33 PM


people have free choice and they get to choose whether to follow God or not, believe Him or not thus it is very unlikely that those who reject the Bible will accept biblical data.

Sure, people have a right to their own opinions. However, they don't have a right to their own facts. You are arguing over facts. You are making claims that are simply wrong based on facts.

and one point, it is not 'virtually the whole scientifi community' there are a great number who do not accept evolutionary dating and accept the anti-evolutinary side of theargument.

Less than 0.1% of biologists reject evolution, as discussed here. If you want to trumpet that <0.1% go for it, but it isn't that impressive.

also as an aside, wich kind of God would you want to serve

I would want to serve a God who made a universe that could be used reliably to date itself. You know, a creation we could trust. The universe you describe is a universe made by a trickster God, a God that has purposefully inserted age into the universe for no other reason than to fool us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:33 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 153 (574040)
08-13-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taq
08-13-2010 5:25 PM


Then why don't we find any dinosaur bones from other times

we do, but as demonstrated by another poster, the excuses come up to defend a theory that cannot be defended.

Why do we find this correlation between dinosaur bones and the ratio of isotopes in the surrounding rocks

the isotopes are in the rocks NOT the skeleton thus the rocks may be older than the skeleton and it seems you are tryingto apply circular reasoning here, the skeletonis old because it is in old rocks and the rocks are old because the skeleton is there.

there are too many reasons why a young skeleton could be among supposely old rocks. unfortunately your side does not consider them.

If radiometric dating is as awful as you suggest then why don't we find rabbits in between igneous rocks that date to 3 billion years old

you know the answer to that as well as i do--not every animal fossilizes, excuses are made, they just haven't been discovered yet and so on. pick one and you have your answer.

here is a quote from a book you may not accept:

1. editors of the catalogue recognized that there were gaps in their coverage of the fossil material They appealed to their readers to help them track down unreported fossil discoveries. {provenance may have been ruined with this act-my comment not the author's}However, some legitimate fossils that would strengthen the creationist position were omitted. A basic question needs to be asked, but ihave never heard anyone ask it. To justify science as a superior worldview, {the late carl}Sagan cites situations in the history of science where the self-correcting mechanism has worked. However, the question is not whether this self-correcting mechanism has worked once, twice, a undred times or a thousand times. The basic question is, How efficient is science as a self-correcting mechanism? or What is the batting average of science in this area? or Out of the total number of mistakes made in science, how many have been corrected?

When we put the question this way, it is obvious that there i sno way of knowinf the total number of mistakes made in thehistory of science. Nor do we know how many uncorrected errors exist in science today. if we knew about them, they would be corrected. Hence it is impossible to know how efficient this self-corrrecting element in science is. But if there is no way to determine its effectiveness, then we can never know if trusting science to lead us to the truth is a very wise worldview or a very foolish one. We all agree that, according to its methods, science could be somewhat self-correcting. But we are not living in a perfect world.


{pg. 51}
so, do any of you have legitimate, sioncere, and honest answers to that question?

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:25 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 98 of 153 (574041)
08-13-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:33 PM


Your response doesn't answer the question.

In fact, it is virtually the entire scientific community. Those who reject it are a small minority, around 5%. I'll happily provide evidence of this if you agree to provide evidence for the "great number" that you claim.

The question is why would so many of them accept the accuracy of what you reject. That they have a choice to follow your god or not doesn't explain why they chose what they did.

What kind of god would I want to serve? Well, one that is consistent with known facts about the real world and that has evidence to support its existence would be a start.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:33 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29190
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 99 of 153 (574042)
08-13-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:24 PM


archaeologist writes:

i do not agree with the 6,000 year date but i do not agree with the old earth theories either, i do not know when the earth and universe were created because if you will note, human time was created AFTER the earth and universe, rendering any determination of age impossible.

I'm sorry but "human time" simply has no meaning, it is just word salad. Time existed long before there were any humans, before this earth, before our sun, before our galaxy. I know when the earth was created and so does just about everyone on this board.

The topic though is on dating.

archaeologist writes:

but created with age does not mean God is lying to people,...

Of course it does. That is precisely what it means. The god you seem to try to market is no different than Coyote or Loki, nothing more than a trickster, at best a practical joker, at worst a conman.

archaeologist writes:

remember my example of the table and the tablemaker, it fails a little because God didn't use old material but the gist is on point.

Remember it. Yes, it failed, but not because of anything God did. It failed because the only thing that the age of the wood can tell us is when the tree got cut down. We can say that the table was not made before the tree was cut down but from the age of the wood, there is not much more we can tell. It was a ridiculous example.

archaeologist writes:

now concerning the age, as i havesaid, God did not say WHEN the earth was created andwhen God keeps a secret it is impossible for anyone to find out what it really is. science cannot discover it because origins is outside of its scope and not part of its authority and because it has no way to verify that it is correct.

Sorry but that is just more nonsense. Of course origins are within the scope of science and the idea that Science must look to some authority is simply ludicrous. What authority would science need?

Science is how we found out that the Biblical Flood never happened, remember?

And we know pretty much exactly when this earth was created.

That is the subject of this thread, and the issues that have been raised and you always tend to run away from.

Why do all the different independent methods of dating give us the same answer? Is that just more of your god fudging the data, playing tricks on folk?

Edited by jar, : wrong word, had universe instead of earth.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:24 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:33 PM jar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13483
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 100 of 153 (574043)
08-13-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:10 PM


archaeologist writes:

... that word [erosion] explains why that particular poster cannot make the claim that all dinosuar skeletons and bones are found in 60,000,000 rock and dirt.


Maybe it wasn't explained clearly enough to you. All dinosaur fossils are found in rocks that are at least 60,000,000 years old. Sometimes erosion removes the younger rocks on top and exposes the fossils but the rocks that the fossils are in are still at least 60,000,000 years old.

So you can dispute the dating of the rocks if you want but you can't really use the fact that they're on the surface as an indication of young age.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:10 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:24 PM ringo has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5277
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 101 of 153 (574046)
08-13-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:12 PM


you do not want me putting creatinist material onhere....

Who doesn't want you to? You've been asked for references many times in your few days here and have supplied a couple to your own website. Well, that and, "I think I read that in a newspaper somewhere." Go ahead! Put some "creatinist material onhere" and see what happens next! It would be more than welcome!


"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 90 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:12 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 153 (574047)
08-13-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Taq
08-13-2010 5:34 PM


Then here is the evidence. On this page you can find dozens of meteorites that have been dated using a multitude of different techniques and isotope pairs and they all return nearly the same date. Can you explain why this is?

havng the same date does not mean they originated at that time. you can have 5 different, independent people examine different objects and all agree to the date of each object but the problem is it is still an assumption.

why? 1. because the material dated may not have originated as thought. a different method was employed. 2. the objects may not have started with the ideal or accepted amount of isotopes needed to get a date; 3. given their life conditions, the decline rate may not have proceeded as pre-determined for those isotopes; 4. what situations did those objects endure that would have corrupted the sampe and the daters are unaware of the corruption; 5. there is no way to verify that those dating systems are correct in their assessment. calibrating them against each other is just the same as one evolutionist going to another evolutionist to agree on the evolutionary theory. you do not have independent investigators doing the work who are free from bias or unobjectivity.

also you have no ancient corroborration that the material tested is the same date as the objects tested, you are testing from the same vantage point, the present thus with no ancient corrobborration, the dates are just an assumption or speculation.

i could go on but the dates like the following quote are mere assumptions even though you have multiple dating systems agreeing:

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age

the bolded parts are a very big assumption and cannot be verified nor confirmed. such conclusions mean nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:34 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 08-13-2010 6:40 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 7:08 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2010 9:31 PM archaeologist has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 153 (574049)
08-13-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
08-13-2010 5:56 PM


So you can dispute the dating of the rocks if you want but you can't really use the fact that they're on the surface as an indication of young age.

and you cannot use the fact that they are found in supposedly 60,000,000 ear old rocks as an indication of old age.

it works both ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 08-13-2010 5:56 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 6:57 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 08-13-2010 7:01 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 153 (574050)
08-13-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coragyps
08-13-2010 6:21 PM


Who doesn't want you to? You've been asked for references many times in your few days here and have supplied a couple to your own website. Well, that and, "I think I read that in a newspaper somewhere." Go ahead! Put some "creatinist material onhere" and see what happens next! It would be more than welcome!

i put quite a few in my posts and yes, some are done from memory because the source can't be found but usually i give all the details so you know they are legitimate and not made up.

as for the ones from news stories, that is common knowledge and if people have read them and deny it, well that is up to them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 6:21 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 153 (574051)
08-13-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
08-13-2010 5:52 PM


Science is how we found out that the Biblical Flood never happened, remember?

this is a fallacy and untrue. given that we cannot dig up the whole world to get uiform evidence, given that we would not know what noah's flood evidence would look like, given that we do not know what the pre-flood geography was like, given that the many natural disasters, volcanoes, earthquakes, local floods etc, would change the evidence insome way, given the many wars and their destructive nature would affect the evidence, given that construction and marching of armies, migrating people would alter the evidence in some way, given that approx. 3,500 years have transpired since the event---just what kind of evidence do you think science would find in the modern age?

let's put it in simple and realistic terms, you just do not want to believe in & obey God, use faith, or agree with the Bible so you use a limited field like science to provide your excuses or justifications to live the life you want.

just be a man and say you do not want to follow God and be done with it. at least that can be respected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 5:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 6:44 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2010 7:09 PM archaeologist has not yet 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