Once you've introduced your key point, namely that radiometric dating is unreliable and that the dates are invented, you must respond to rebuttals. What you're instead doing is repeating your initial points.
You are right and I agree.
BUT I have repeated these points to debaters who just entered the discussion and/or initiated a question/point which justified going over my arguments again.
If this happens again I won't repeat them - I will link the previous posts which cover the already posted material.
Rebuttals have been addressed. Opponents don't like my answers or are evading the original point.
So far you've offered the tuff and volcanos as evidence.
Not entirely true.
Here is what I have posted:
1)
Message 7 KBS Tuff (objectively accepted by Crashfrog/
Message 89, "Thats one"
KBS Tuff CREATES the reasonable doubt that any external independant accuracy check exists except as argued by Milton and I.
KBS Tuff CREATES the reasonable doubt that all other dating events do the same, that is to accept dates in accordance with what is already known.
2)
Message 7 Isochron dating method which is the very method touted to ensure errors cannot occurr due to anomalous loss or gain of argon.
KBS Tuff proved that the Isochron method is not what it is claimed/billed as. Anomalous argon loss/gain caused the KBS Tuff dating fiasco.
The two teams involved were some of the best scientists anywhere. IF they could not date the tuff using Isochron minus the errors claimed by the method to ensure that anomalous argon loss/gain does not happen, then the technique and its reliability is falsified.
Nobody has refuted the evidence showing the Isochron method to be unreliable.
3)
Message 7 reject/discard dates:
My criticism is invulnerable: The discard dates are only rejected based on what "seems" right and what is already known.
The discard dates also cast valid suspicion on any given technique which produced them.
Message 121 WT: "The discard dates have one value: The dating technique and/or the scientists involved unreliability."
4)
Message 37 Message 62
Introduced the fact that the Cretaceous period was time-dated based upon a guess by Lyell and NOT via some scientific method.
The settled on date has been ballpark close ever since.
This evidence exposes the nonsense of claimed external and independant dating accuracy checks to really be based on a starting benchmark that was not scientifically established.
This evidence accurately describes dating claims to really be internally compatible and consistent.
Message 70 Has Cory admitting, "Blind luck, mostly" in regards to Lyell being ballpark close to what is generally accepted today.
5)
Message 68 Geological Column and its glaring inconsistencies in regards to the rate of measured thickness and the amount being able to achieve fossilization of a tad pole much less a forest.
And the lack of any uniformity in relative modern times.
6)
Message 68 South African rock painting dating failure. Your only repsonse is to assert that Milton probably made it up. The burden of proof is on you when an accusation of that nature is asserted.
I have a source from a book = Forum Guidelines observed.
7)
Message 74 Volcanic lava
8)
Message 79 Milton, page 51:
"Published dating figures always conform to preconceived dates and NEVER contradict those dates. If all the rejected dates were retrieved from the waste basket and added to the published dates, the combined results would show that the dates produced are the scatter that one would expect by chance alone."
This is a common sense observation which is valid and true.
Trace the chain backwards and the starting benchmark dates were estimates made by Darwinists.
9)
Message 127:
Milton's point (page 47):
"Argon 40 is a very common isoptope. Argon is the 12th most abundant chemical element on Earth and more than 99 percent is argon 40.
There is no physical or chemical way to tell whether any given sample of argon 40 is the residue of radioactive decay or was present in the rocks when they formed. Moreover, as argon is an inert gas that will not react with any other element, its atoms will always be trapped in the crystal structures of minerals whether it is radiogenic in origin or not.
So, if radiogenic argon 40 is like "a bird in a cage", then it is a cage that already contains birds of the same feather, from which it is indistinguishable." END MILTON QUOTE.
The above evidence went completely unchallenged.
10)
Message 130 WT: "The odds of intelligent life and order being produced by a continuous accident and random chance is the greatest definition of irrational."
11)
Message 130 C-14 unreliability evidence:
"As reported in the Journal radio carbon in 1986 scientists used C-14 to date an Egyptian mummy linen....as well as two Peruvian linen cloths....they knew the age of these they dug them out of graves.
" It demonstrated that the method is somewhat wanting in accuracy with regard to linen. The Egyptian mummy linen the dates ranged from 3440 to 4517 spanning eleven hundred years. The known age of the cloth was 3000 BC. The closest date C-14 could produce was 2528 requiring a calibration of 472 years to correct it. "
" Potentially the most damaging single piece of evidence to controvert the 1988 test results comes from the reported disclosure that there was a secret dating of the Shroud conducted at a California nuclear accelerator facility in 1982. Separate ends of a single thread (little smaller than a postage stamp) were dated with one end dating 200 AD and the other end of the same thread dating 1000 AD....the wide divergence in dating on the same thread should be alarming to those who consider the 1988 test definitive. " END Journal QUOTE
Again, when age of material is known and a technique fails this becomes the basis to tag the method unreliable.
12)
Message 161 Criticism of never looking outside the "ballpark" and "intellectual phase locking" expose the fudge that exists in evidence given status as "scientific proof".
Next I will answer message 178 per your request.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 11-01-2004 10:02 PM
™ Version 4.2
