Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 2:51 PM
94 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, dronestar, GDR, JonF, New Cat's Eye, PaulK, Tanypteryx (8 members, 86 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,745 Year: 21,351/21,208 Month: 1,784/2,326 Week: 239/881 Day: 64/97 Hour: 5/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 153 (574111)
08-14-2010 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
08-13-2010 6:44 PM


you simply post untruths

how does it feel to be wrong so much. i posted nothing but truth as that is what has taken place over the past 3500-4000 years. you also forget that wooley dug down almost 100 ft and found what he thought originally the flood layer.

of course that was rejected by the establishment of that time and he racanted BUT what that proves is, even if someone did find evidence for the flood, they would be shouted down by all the naysayers who do not want the Bible true and who expect a uniform deposit of evidence; which we all know is basically impossible.

with mountains and rivers and lakes, those naysayers will never get what they want and even if they did, it ishighly unlikely they would accept or believe it to be evidence.

As I have told you I am a devout Christian

this is undermined by the following:

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 &

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7

which unbelieving person would want to believe in God and His words when you, who claims to be a christian and goes to church, do not?

christians are to be Christlike and guess what--Christ believed in creation and spoke if it yet you do not. you lose.

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

really?? how would you know there would be a bottleneck if all the species were destroyed and only a few saved? where would you get their records to see such an event?

no the flood has not been refuted simply because of your bias and hatred towards the Bible. you have no clue as to what to look for so you just make things up as you go.

with 8 people and at least 5 having different mothers and no idea what DNA they may have carried i do not think you have a chance to prove your statements. especially since their bodies are long gone as well as their DNA evidence. which means no verification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 6:44 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-14-2010 9:20 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 153 (574112)
08-14-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by shalamabobbi
08-14-2010 1:26 AM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
so you didn't do your homework..if you had read the articles cited you would know that the method proves the starting isotopic composition and that the system has remained closed.

still doesn't tell you how many they started with when the decline initiated nor does it tell you how many are lost because of the mitigating factiors that play a role in the decline of isotopes.

bodies eaten by birds and animals, natural disasters spoiling the body, and so much more.

all you people are doing is throwing up weak excuses so you can maitain whatever weak belief you have in your own systems. you also hate the fact that i do not accept your systems blindly like you do. can't help it, there are just too many errors involved for me to accept such frail methods.

If you had read the articles you might have noticed that the dating methods were verified by testing them on historical samples of known age.

just so you know, those known dates are not 10,000 years or older. they are very recent and most likely have historical records to verify them which you do not have for dates older than let's say 6,000 years since tree rings are involved.

but again, the reliability of the tree rings is questioned as well and does not make for a good calibrator.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-14-2010 1:26 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-14-2010 11:59 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 123 of 153 (574123)
08-14-2010 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 11:55 PM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
Hi Archaeologist,

I noticed with regret this morning that you were suspended a few hours ago. There seems to have been some concern about your volume of messages and how well they were addressing the topic. If you click on the red suspension symbol you'll see the reason Adminnemooseus gave for the suspension, and the moderators will be discussing your situation later today.

I haven't finished reading all the posts from last night, but here's a little information that you might find helpful.

  • You seem very sensitive to the way you're treated, but to the moderators it appears that you're being treated pretty much the same way you're treating everyone else. For instance, when you posted this in Message 97:

    archaeologist writes:

    so, do any of you have legitimate, sioncere, and honest answers to that question?

    You were in essence saying that people had been posting illegitimate, insincere and dishonest answers. You've been harping on other people's honesty and objectivity since the day you joined. With your continual questioning of everyone's integrity, what kind of tone were you expecting in the responses?

    Please let the moderators handle moderation issues. If you feel you're being treated unfairly then the complaints should be taken to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

  • Your arguments do not usually reference any evidence. In the science forums arguments should be based upon evidence. The Forum Guidelines are fairly general on most points, but rule 4 touches on this:

    1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Hope this helps, and we all hope to see you back soon.

Please, no responses to this message in this thread. Responses should be posted to Report discussion problems here: No.2.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 11:55 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29185
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 124 of 153 (574140)
08-14-2010 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by archaeologist
08-14-2010 3:17 AM


archaeologist writes:

jar writes:

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

really?? how would you know there would be a bottleneck if all the species were destroyed and only a few saved? where would you get their records to see such an event?

This is a classic example of the errors you make. You need to learn to read the information people post to try to help you.

We know there was a bottleneck because the Bible told us so. It tells us all the critters that were on land or flew (at a minimum, since there are two and maybe even three different flood myths all mixed up together I am taking the example that didn't kill off all the things in the sea. If that is considered then the bottle neck signature would be even bigger and more obvious.) were killed except the critters taken on the ark. If that is true then everything living today must be descended from those ark populations.

We see the same thing in looking at the data from uranium dating. You simply refuse to actually consider the very good information people are kind enough to provide for you.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 3:17 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 125 of 153 (574163)
08-14-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by archaeologist
08-14-2010 3:34 AM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
still doesn't tell you how many they started with when the decline initiated nor does it tell you how many are lost because of the mitigating factors that play a role in the decline of isotopes.

bodies eaten by birds and animals, natural disasters spoiling the body, and so much more.

All you've done here is re-emphasize the fact that you didn't read the articles. The isochron method DOES tell us how many they started with "when the decline initiated". The method measures that quantity, it is the y-intercept.

The rest of your objection illustrates that you do not yet understand the distinction between isochron dating and C14 dating. The bodies eaten by birds etc are the types of specimens that would be dated by C14 and this part of your "mitigating factors" plays no role whatsoever in the isochron dating technique.

This is the reason I do not believe your claim to hold higher degrees and believe you are a youth. ( That and your sensitivity.)

Your argument is incoherent. You say that dating techniques are calling God a liar and yet you claim that the Bible doesn't pinpoint when God created the heavens and the earth.

all you people are doing is throwing up weak excuses so you can maintain whatever weak belief you have in your own systems. you also hate the fact that i do not accept your systems blindly like you do. can't help it, there are just too many errors involved for me to accept such frail methods.

If you were capable of seeing it, your critique actually applies to yourself.

What makes more sense? Treating the statement in Genesis that Eve was created from Adam's rib as an allegory that illustrates woman's place is at a man's side as his companion, his equal. (she wasn't created from his foot to be his slave, nor from his head to rule over him)
Or to treat the statement as a literal historical event?? If a slice of pie is cherry is the next slice out of the pie pan apple?

Sorry to see you suspended. Hope you come back soon. The enforcement to stay on topic sometimes seems a nuisance, but having been in forums where this is not enforced I've seen countless threads derailed and destroyed and turn into a chaotic soup.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 3:34 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 153 (574256)
08-15-2010 12:35 AM


as to the suspension and reasons, i make no comment.

Your argument is incoherent. You say that dating techniques are calling God a liar and yet you claim that the Bible doesn't pinpoint when God created the heavens and the earth.What makes more sense?

before answering that question one has to consider the ramifications of the former has on the whole bible and life. and there are several issues to be dealt with in doing that: 1. who has th eright or authority to determine that story an allegory? 2. who gave them that right and what right/authority did they have? 3. if it is open to any and all to make their own interpretations as to what is or isn't an allegory then anarchy prevails over the Bible and a fight ensues as to who is right. 4.what evidence do they have that it is an allegory? they can't say that science says evolution makes it an allegory for science can't prove that or that the process of evolution acrtually exists (it can't put the process in a test tube and study it) 5. too much subjectivity- everyone is human and not greater than another thus whose opinion is correct (read 'the end of reason' by ravi zacharias for more on that type of argument).

these factors all come into play when you want to choose the former and pretty soon you end up with anarchy because everyone has their own ideas and want to implement them or if there is a strong enough person to force his will, when he dies and another person takes his place, he will change everything to his way and so until anrachy arrives on the scene.

The isochron method DOES tell us how many they started with "when the decline initiated".

let me answer you by an example as i believe that that is impossible. say i give you a jar of jelly beans that is 3/8ths full and ask you to tell me how many i started with. you say that is simple because you think the jar was completely full when the decline of the jelly beans started. so you use your systems to measure the beans, the space and figure that a non-candy eater would take maybe one or two out a week (or whatever) and you calculate a total number and give it to me.

i tell you that you are incorrect because the jar was only 3/4s full when i started to take beans out of the jar. you cannot calculate how much was in the jar because that is an unknown subject to many factors.

now to the article that i went through this morning:

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective Dr. Roger C. Wiens

The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the Earth's rocks are that old...Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the Earth's surface disappearing under other parts of the Earth's surface, re-melting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say--from this line of evidence--is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.

if this keeps happening then how can you be sure that the rocks dated
were the original ones? or that corruption didn't alter its dating components or the dating components didn't arrive when they were supposed to?

When the asteroids were formed in space, they cooled relatively quickly (some of them may never have gotten very warm), so all of their rocks were formed within a few million years. The asteroids' rocks have not been remelted ever since, so the ages have generally not been disturbed. Meteorites that show evidence of being from the largest asteroids have slightly younger ages

purely assumption for maybe the asteroids broke off of a larger rock? no clock on the cooling period no observation on the formation, it is assumed this is the way they were formed but no evidence to verify and confirm/

Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up.

another bad example because if one looks at only this limited evidence , which is copied today on todays paper and assignments , abraham lincoln could have lived at any time. it doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be wrong.

The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing

this just skates over the issues and ignores too many factors that play a part. 1. the dating systems come from like-minded people, 2. just because they agree doesn't mean they are correct. if the opposite is true then all a criminal would have to do is have 5-10 people agree when and where he was and the prosecutor would have to let him go free, whether it was true or not. agreeance doesn't mean truth.

Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope

this is where he lost all credibility. a telescope is not a time machine and it does not look back into earth's past nor the universe's. it is looking at an event unrelated to origins and it is assumed that those events are the same kind as the claimed origins of earth.

what they are really looking at is, for example, a simple star flaming out and has nothing to do with anything in history, it just finished its time in existence just like people do.

there is no way to provide any evidence that a star dying out has anything to do with the big bang or evolutionary process nor is it evidence for claimed original conditions because once again there is no way to prove the earth's original condition was like that star's.

it is all pure conjecture, speculation, wishfull thinking and assumption.

which brings me to my concluding remarks:

the dating systems operate upon assumption only-

1. it is assumed that age helps determine method
2. it is assumed that origins took place as secular science claims
3. it ignores other alternatives which would throw dates off.
4. it is assumed that agreeance means correct
5. it ignores the fact that there is no way to verify those dates with actual ancient records.
6. it is assumed that receiving, rentention and declination go as theoried by modern scientists.

it could go on and with each one you cannot provide scientific evidence to verify and confirm your assumptions. with the half life of many dating systems to large to confirm, it is just impossible to know for certain if one is correct or not.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Remove extraneous quote dBCode.


Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2010 1:18 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 129 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-15-2010 3:48 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 132 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-15-2010 4:57 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 135 by subbie, posted 08-15-2010 9:02 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 127 of 153 (574261)
08-15-2010 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:35 AM


Belief
As Heinlein noted,
Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Your posts are so full of belief that you seem incapable of learning anything.

That's just sad. And a real waste, both of your intellect and our time.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:35 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 3:40 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 153 (574266)
08-15-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Coyote
08-15-2010 1:18 AM


Re: Belief
As Heinlein noted,

Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Your posts are so full of belief that you seem incapable of learning anything.

That's just sad. And a real waste, both of your intellect and our time.

if that is all you have then i would say heinlein is wrong and i will leave it up to the mods to determine if it is on topic or another personal attack from you.

one of the problems faced by believers when dealing with the secular world is this very idea. the secular world only considers people educated or learned something if the believer goes the secular route. that just isn't so.

now, i will stipulate that many, many evangelical christians and creationists do not study well enough to discuss these issues but to assume that learning is only in the realm of the secular displays an ignorance that is hard to combat or convince otherwise.

one of the reasons i read non-christian books is that i am frustrated with the lack of scholarship, investigation, research, exploration, discussion and so on that goes on with most christian works. one such book was Erwin Lutzer's The Cross and the Swastika. What a frustrating book as it did not explore the issue as i had hoped and when i complained to a christian friend of many decades i almost lost a friendship because that author was one of his favorites and he couldn't handle the critique of is work.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2010 1:18 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 129 of 153 (574267)
08-15-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:35 AM


welcome back archeologist,

I don't have time tonight to respond. I'd like to take up your jelly bean example and relate that to the isochron method of dating. I remember you made a comment "you americans" in a post and would like to know whether english is your native language. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:35 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 4:05 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 153 (574269)
08-15-2010 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by shalamabobbi
08-15-2010 3:48 AM


I don't have time tonight to respond. I'd like to take up your jelly bean example and relate that to the isochron method of dating.

i am doing some more reading and i found this:

One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, meaning that they all formed at about the same time from a common pool of material in which the relevant elements and isotopes were distributed reasonably homogeneously.

that is a very big problem given what the author of the article wrote about very few rocks being 4 billion years old.

and here your author seems to agree with me:

All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time

which means that you are basing the dates upon ideals and assumptions that the certain conditions were present throughout those 4 billion to say 3 million years before the sample was dated.

that is a very big assumption to make.

I remember you made a comment "you americans" in a post and would like to know whether english is your native language

not every native english speaker is american or speaks the american version of the language.

**one more question, how does the researcher taking the samples of rock know that the rock he is taking samples from is a complete rock and not one that may have splintered over the billons of years?

such splintering would throw off the dates as well.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-15-2010 3:48 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2010 4:15 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 08-15-2010 7:39 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 131 of 153 (574270)
08-15-2010 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 4:05 AM


It's not clear from your comments what it is you're trying to misunderstand or in what way you're trying to misunderstand it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 4:05 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 132 of 153 (574275)
08-15-2010 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:35 AM


archaeologist writes:

shalamabobbi writes:

Your argument is incoherent. You say that dating techniques are calling God a liar and yet you claim that the Bible doesn't pinpoint when God created the heavens and the earth.What makes more sense?


before answering that question one has to consider the ramifications...

Um, you forgot to answer the question. In fact, you apparently didn't understand shalamabobbi's point at all, which is: According to you, God doesn't say how long ago the earth was created, and according to you, when scientists start to figure out how old the earth really is, the age they come up with contradicts what God said and therefore they call God a liar.... That's incoherent -- in fact it qualifies as a form of self-contradiction, which tends to be a frequent attribute in your posts.

1. who has th eright or authority to determine that story an allegory? 2. who gave them that right and what right/authority did they have?

I gather you are referring to the creation story in Genesis. Well, who has the right or authority to determine this the story must be interpreted "literally" as a 6-day (144-hour) event?

In a nation that guarantees religious freedom to its citizens, and does not impose or endorse specific religious beliefs as a matter of government policy or law, every citizen has the right to determine his or her own interpretation of religious texts, and no one has the authority to impose or coerce their own belief on another. This has been established and maintained through the consent of the governed. It's actually a pretty good approach, all things considered. Don't you agree?

3. if it is open to any and all to make their own interpretations as to what is or isn't an allegory then anarchy prevails over the Bible and a fight ensues as to who is right.

When arguments about the interpretation of religious text are based solely on the text itself and on unevidenced extrapolation from the text (e.g. "God said 'X', but He didn't say 'Y', therefore, He must have meant that 'Y' cannot be true, or 'X' actually means 'Z', or..."), you are absolutely right: if it is open to any and all to make their own interpretation, then anarchy prevails.

This has been seen repeatedly in the history of Christian (and Jewish and Islamic) dogma, and we continue to see it happening again and again. Most (perhaps all) of the irreconcilable schisms among the various sects involve differences of interpretation on issues where observable evidence is unobtainable -- i.e. issues that can only be imagined (hence, are imaginary), such God's will, God's plan, the kind of afterlife assigned by God to homosexuals (or unbaptized infants or virtuous Buddhists or Democrats or ...), etc, ad nauseum.

Avoiding anarchy -- that is, reaching consensus -- can be assured only when there is a reliance on observable evidence to settle disputes. In other words, until you can establish an empirical, objective basis for answering a given question, you really cannot reconcile opposing views about how to answer the question.

We are able to measure the consistency of uranium decay and the distribution of pre- and post-decay isotopes in nature; we can even observe the mechanism of the decay and the effect it has on other elements. These are empirical findings that can be (and have been) repeatedly confirmed by independent researchers using a variety of techniques. What the findings tell us about the age of various geological formations on the planet can be (and has been) checked for consistency with other (distinct and independent) forms of evidence.

The observed consistency of the age estimates is not a matter of opinion or assumption or interpretation or faith. It's a matter of simple logical entailment applied to repeated and consistent physical measurements, with an ever-growing range of validation checks to rule out mistakes. Despite your inability to see it, consensus among scientists is widespread and stable, particularly regarding the age of the earth.

4.what evidence do they have that it is an allegory?

It is simply the unavoidable fact that a "literal 6-day" interpretation of Genesis cannot be reconciled with this overwhelming (and continuously growing) body of observed evidence.

... science can't prove ... that the process of evolution acrtually exists (it can't put the process in a test tube and study it)

Um, no -- actually science can "put the process in a test tube and study it". This has been done repeatedly, over many decades. It works: bacteria, viruses, fruit flies, genetically altered crops -- and of course animal husbandry and plant hybridization. Despite your inability to understand it, these are all cases of evolution happening before our very eyes.

5. too much subjectivity- everyone is human and not greater than another thus whose opinion is correct

Yes, everyone is human, but when lots of people address the same problem empirically, they come at it in lots of different ways, covering many different side issues about verifiability (i.e. "checking the math"), possible errors in sampling or measurement, gaps and entailments in logic, and so on. When they arrive at consistent results and establish an objective consensus, they successfully overcome the limitations of subjectivity.

Religious dogmatists such as yourself, on the other hand, have no objective basis for overcoming that same, intrinsically human problem of subjectivity, and the result is the inevitable descent into anarchy, as shown repeatedly in the schismatic histories of the Abrahamic religions.

Your religious text is no help -- in fact it is the source of the problem, as you have demonstrated in your own posts. In every argument you've made, you've shown a complete unwillingness to understand how objective evidence settles disputes about real-world phenomena. Since you appeal only to your own interpretations of the bible, and your sense of "logic" is limited to making bare assertions, your opinions carry the same "validity" and "authority" as every other conflicting opinion that is based only on religious text, which is to say: no validity or authority whatsoever.

All the inconsistencies and self-contradictions in your posts just emphasize the problem -- this seems to be a symptom of a common disease among people who somehow feel that they must accept the entire content of the bible as "literally" inerrant, and that its obvious inconsistencies and self-contradictions must be ignored or rationalized. It's an unfortunate state of mind, having an obvious (and negative) impact on the ability to communicate (and think) clearly.

{This message has essentially no contact with the topic theme - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:35 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15701
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 133 of 153 (574283)
08-15-2010 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 4:05 AM


Hi Everyone!

Adminnemooseus is now on duty in this thread, so I'm going to switch to being a normal participant. Ohboyohboyohboyohboy!

Hi Archaeologist!

You're obviously strongly influenced by what you believe the Bible says. You believe not only that Biblical testimony trumps real world evidence, but that your interpretation of the Bible trumps anyone else's outside your faith group and that it even gives you the right to declare who is a Christian and who is not.

But while it's fascinating watching someone demonstrate fundamentalist faith in real time, that's not what this thread is about. If you'd like to discuss the Biblical foundation for your faith then there are many threads for that over in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy. Here in forums like this one we discuss the scientific evidence.

Most of your objections to dating methods seem to be based upon a belief that we couldn't possibly know with any certainty what we claim to know. Rest assured that we can know these things with as much certainty as that Lincoln and the Civil War occurred in the 19th century. If you truly believe that much uncertainty surrounds Lincoln and the Civil War then there's no point in trying to convince you of anything, so if you were serious about that then it would be good to know up front so that those presenting science to you can make an informed decision about whether they're wasting their time.

archaeologist writes:

One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, meaning that they all formed at about the same time from a common pool of material in which the relevant elements and isotopes were distributed reasonably homogeneously.

that is a very big problem given what the author of the article wrote about very few rocks being 4 billion years old.

There are very few places on Earth where the rocks approach 4 billion years in age, but Greenland is one of those places. Here's a table of references to scientific papers that dated rocks from Greenland, taken from Brent Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth. Click to grow the image to readable size:

Another of your concerns is about sample contamination:

All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time

which means that you are basing the dates upon ideals and assumptions that the certain conditions were present throughout those 4 billion to say 3 million years before the sample was dated.

With isochron dating, a contaminated sample does not yield a straight line. When the analysis yields a straight line it means no contamination occurred. This graph and the caption is from Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective:


Figure 4. A rubidium-strontium three-isotope plot. When a rock cools, all its minerals have the same ratio of strontium-87 to strontium-86, though they have varying amounts of rubidium. As the rock ages, the rubidium decreases by changing to strontium-87, as shown by the dotted arrows. Minerals with more rubidium gain more strontium-87, while those with less rubidium do not change as much. Notice that at any given time, the minerals all line up--a check to ensure that the system has not been disturbed.

Another of your concerns was how we could know the original concentration of daughter material. As you can see in this graph, the original concentration is the Y-intercept:


Figure 5. The original amount of the daughter strontium-87 can be precisely determined from the present-day composition by extending the line through the data points back to rubidium-87 = 0. This works because if there were no rubidium-87 in the sample, the strontium composition would not change. The slope of the line is used to determine the age of the sample.

Uranium dating, the topic of this thread, is not an isochron method, which means that independent methods must be used to determine the original amount of daughter material, and this isn't always possible with the necessary accuracy. Those of you active in the field please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe plain old U/Pb dating is a commonly used dating method today.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 4:05 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by JonF, posted 08-15-2010 5:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 153 (574291)
08-15-2010 8:35 AM


You're obviously strongly influenced by what you believe the Bible says. You believe not only that Biblical testimony trumps real world evidence, but that your interpretation of the Bible trumps anyone else's outside your faith group and that it even gives you the right to declare who is a Christian and who is not.

But while it's fascinating watching someone demonstrate fundamentalist faith in real time, that's not what this thread is about. If you'd like to discuss the Biblical foundation for your faith then there are many threads for that over in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy. Here in forums like this one we discuss the scientific evidence.

you secularists are all the same, you want dialogue or discussion but you have to keep tilting the playing field inyour direction. if you can't wirte the rules then you do not want to play.

i have proven, using a man who lost his faith, that objectivity is impossible yet you keep wanting to force it because you do not want to hear the truth nor contradictory arguments to your viewpoints. Dever states the impossibility and quotes James Barr saying the same thing thus i will continue to post from my perspective as it is just as valid or more so than you think yours is.

Most of your objections to dating methods seem to be based upon a belief that we couldn't possibly know with any certainty what we claim to know. Rest assured that we can know these things with as much certainty as that Lincoln and the Civil War occurred in the 19th century. If you truly believe that much uncertainty surrounds Lincoln and the Civil War then there's no point in trying to convince you of anything, so if you were serious about that then it would be good to know up front so that those presenting science to you can make an informed decision about whether they're wasting their time.

and i can tell you that you do not know as you use assumption for fact and my point about lincoln was very simple--you can cast a shadow of a doubt on anything by using the evidence at hand. i did not say he was not alive during the civil war but pointed out that you could make the case of his existence being earlier than agreed upon just by using the evidence.

There are very few places on Earth where the rocks approach 4 billion years in age, but Greenland is one of those places

last i looked greenland wasn't the whole earth and its tempatures and situation would do a lot to alter the isotopes in those rocks. instead of going graph by graph, i will just say htins, all you did was reprint what i have already read from authors who think like you. that is not being objective but biased and presenting your point of view when you disallow mine.

Uranium dating, the topic of this thread, is not an isochron method

amazing. but if you would actually look at th eposts, i was not the one who changed it but address those posts written to me. that is all i do.

here are a couple of articles that point out the flaws of isochron dating:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/...on/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

i do not really care if you accept them or not but if you dismiss them then i know for sure you only want to hear what you want to hear and there is no point in continuing a discussion.

you all are under the false impression that you or science gets to make the rules but as i have pointed out, origins and akll of its sub-topics belong to religion NOT science. at best you all are usurpers and think you can take over. you can't.

the other thing is, if you do not want the truth, i can't force it on you so i will take the night to tyhink about continuing here as i am not into wasting my time with closed minded andintolerant people who cannot allow for theological and christianpoints of view.

secular science is not science, it is a purposefully designed area of science to avoid the truth by looking in the wrong direction for the wrong answers simply because secularists want anything but the Bible.

as i said, origins is a one time supernatural act which cannot and will not be repeated and you are wasting your time and money trying to construct something that never existed in the first place.

if anyone wants to continue to sincerely and honestly discuss with me, if i do not return you can find me at:

http://www.phpbb88.com/archiesforum/

i do not care if you disagree with me just back up your points with credible links to legitimate sources. oh and make sure you read the rules first because yo may not like the level playing field.


Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 08-15-2010 9:54 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 135 of 153 (574296)
08-15-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:35 AM


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?

I know you think you already have, but you haven't. All you said was they have the choice to follow god, but you haven't explained why they choose as they do. Let me explain.

The scientific establishment might accept it because that's what all the evidence says. That's obviously not what you think. They might accept it because Satan has fooled them. They might accept it because they are tools of Satan. They might accept it because they're stupid and don't understand the lack of evidence.

Why do you think they accept what you reject?


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 126 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:35 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
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