Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'We' Evo's think.....................
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 91 of 102 (68442)
11-21-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by mike the wiz
11-21-2003 3:38 PM


Mike,
The Brad path is not one you want to tread.....If you want to be understood, that is.
One of the things that frustrates me most about Brad, is that he clearly is educated & has something interesting to say. Yet for some reason he is "word" dyslexic. He cannot, no matter how hard he tries, make any sense whatsoever. His first thoughts are transmitted to his fingertips, bypassing his "cognitive cortex" (my very own Bradism), & the rest of us are left wondering why he isn't locked up.
This is not a good place to be, Mike.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by mike the wiz, posted 11-21-2003 3:38 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by mike the wiz, posted 11-21-2003 8:06 PM mark24 has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 92 of 102 (68451)
11-21-2003 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by mark24
11-21-2003 7:24 PM


They said I was dyslexic before conclusion time, although I suspect so myself with the short term memory method. Certainly the waves of uncertainty caused a superficial outcome at the time but the institution had to release me for it was spoken of. However the programme indicates problems only with the 'non topic' which means the wiz file will still work on the other issues, but the expression achieved by this amazes me although this logic cannot be clarified itself it holds no errors. That may surprise you but it is in itself only context nevertheless a truth, as for Brad I will not presume who he is, for the context of the logic is only within my file. On the other hand the loss of control is a good thing due to the unique timetable which suffices the apple gage. I will clarify the subject instructions in a coin and three quarters, which is big.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 7:24 PM mark24 has not replied

joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 102 (68456)
11-21-2003 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rei
11-19-2003 8:49 PM


quote:
No, I'm calling any scientist who wouldn't do radiometric dating on a fossil (where possible) - even if they're one of the 1% or so of professional archaeologists who are creationist - an idiot. You lose credibility if you don't take part in standard procedure. It'd be like me being a researcher who didn't sterilize equipment before culturing bacteria, joining in 1% of researchers who didn't believe in sterilizing equipment before such experiments. Even if I didn't believe in it, I'd be an idiot not to do it - I'd lose all credibility.
It may be standard procedure but radiometric dating is very inaccurate and unreliable.
------------------
Bible
Search Results
"love" was found 865 times in 751 verses.
Thats a Whole Lotta Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 11-19-2003 8:49 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by sidelined, posted 11-21-2003 8:27 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 95 by NosyNed, posted 11-21-2003 8:32 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 96 by mark24, posted 11-22-2003 3:17 AM joshua221 has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 94 of 102 (68457)
11-21-2003 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by joshua221
11-21-2003 8:17 PM


Iron Man
What procedure in radiometric dating are you refering to because this blanket statement does not specify.Please allows us in on the problems you see instead of saying something that allows us no way to verify your contention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by joshua221, posted 11-21-2003 8:17 PM joshua221 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 95 of 102 (68459)
11-21-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by joshua221
11-21-2003 8:17 PM


It may be standard procedure but radiometric dating is very inaccurate and unreliable.
Oh is it? Amazing that it produces such consistent results then isn't it? Perhaps you would like to go to a dates and dating thread and defend that rather outrageous statment?
How about you read over this one:
http://EvC Forum: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate? -->EvC Forum: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
You should understand that a statement like that undefended might as well not have been made. As you will discover if you try to defend it, you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by joshua221, posted 11-21-2003 8:17 PM joshua221 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 96 of 102 (68521)
11-22-2003 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by joshua221
11-21-2003 8:17 PM


Iron Man,
It may be standard procedure but radiometric dating is very inaccurate and unreliable.
We'll see........
Apologies to those who’ve seen the bulk of this before, but no YEC has given a significant answer. It deals with four radiometric dating methods dating K-T tektites that corroborate a 65 m.y. age, & the implications of rationale & reason, with respect to maintaining a YEC 6,000 year old earth world view, based on the odds involved.
(Quoting Brent Dalrymple)
The K-T Tektites
One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.
In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.
The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).
There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.
1/
So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE.
Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half life constancy.
2/
The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.
64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YECs)
The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).
Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is..drum roll..
92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1
Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance?
If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise?
Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods are 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000 year old earth, minimum. So, saying that half lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small contribution by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth.
3/
The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.
64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice)
10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1
My questions to creationists are ;
A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?
B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you account for the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?
C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?
D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being wrong by the same factor?
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by joshua221, posted 11-21-2003 8:17 PM joshua221 has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 97 of 102 (68852)
11-23-2003 8:04 PM


Is the pie still fresh
The bogus antic does not correspond when dealing with odds. Because the oddity you own disregards the spiritual ignorance concerning millenial vegetables. Though the sub interest of myself renders ignorance of my own when potatoes aren't digested. Fully informing both sides will seem impossible so you can ignore this post. From now on I'll keep the bin full if the evo units reduct infiltration capacity via the bran flakes phenomena in all places and with sugar reducing nature included, I thought this went well despite parting the winter scepticism despite spelling foundations needing upgrades. An explanation is needed if the logic file found no bound when it hospitalised all thinking. Nevertheless hopes are high with a biological pie on high seeking a parachute. Untill the pie lands my knife and fork await with a salt shaking budgie doing my bidding, if at any time he evolves we will know that the bin is full.

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by JonF, posted 11-23-2003 8:21 PM mike the wiz has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 98 of 102 (68854)
11-23-2003 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by mike the wiz
11-23-2003 8:04 PM


Re: Is the pie still fresh
Erm?
Your meds OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by mike the wiz, posted 11-23-2003 8:04 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by mike the wiz, posted 11-23-2003 8:31 PM JonF has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 99 of 102 (68855)
11-23-2003 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by JonF
11-23-2003 8:21 PM


Re: meds
Depends what they are but anything could qualify, pole position is an unregistered poster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by JonF, posted 11-23-2003 8:21 PM JonF has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 100 of 102 (68858)
11-23-2003 9:02 PM


While the unnamed race drivers clammer for position I thought I could clarify further but only on a cosmological level. Therefore all stars no matter how bright themselves might digest the biological pie, but only if gravity removes itself in a spontaneous act of will. But does gravity have will? Is evolution a proposed mind? - This will confuse you but don't waste too much time playing Sherlock when Columbo has solved the problem. I call him this because of the humble nature of his source which is ofcourse good. I feel Holmes lacked the humble traits of an intelligent mind but then he's only fictional to the real world. So then we have gravitational time dilation which has no right to intefere with my youth as long as it was a past effect of truth which I simply don't know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by AdminNosy, posted 11-23-2003 9:09 PM mike the wiz has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 101 of 102 (68861)
11-23-2003 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by mike the wiz
11-23-2003 9:02 PM


Boy, Mike you do a passable imitation of Brad! It might be funny in the thread for that. However, I think that is enough of it for this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by mike the wiz, posted 11-23-2003 9:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 102 of 102 (68864)
11-23-2003 9:15 PM


topic blowup??
Even though AM allowed you to go to town with this thread, as it had no true topic, I'm of the opinion that it's getting rather ridiculous. Mike, if all you want to do is to show off your impersonations, we are all convinced. Unless someone can give me some good reason to reopen it...I'm closing it down.
Bring issues with this to me here.
------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024