Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 141 (257956)
11-08-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 5:49 PM


Different Radiometric techniques
NO just wanted to refute your claim that all methods require ratios of parent to daughter... just so.
Some methods do require parent\daughter ratios, others do not. Some utilize water transport of soluble {parents\daughters} too.
For a rather complete discussion of radiometric dating technology read
Radiometric Dating
Dr. Wiens addresses many of the common errors of creationists as well as providing a good overview of the state of the science of radiometric technology.
Evopeach, msg 70 writes:
Actually radiocarbon dating uses C14 to C14 comparisons.. no daughter involved.
You meant the ratio of 14C to 12C within an object, and not 14C to 14C, right? (it is also checked with the ratio of 13C when there is doubt, as in resevoir effects and the like.)
I suggest you read the RATE project material ...
Why? there is plenty of scientific material on the topic. Like Dr. Wiens ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:49 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 2:29 PM RAZD has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 77 of 141 (258159)
11-09-2005 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
11-08-2005 7:57 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal. If so that's one answer you must not have received previously.. the logical one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2005 7:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 2:37 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2005 7:22 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 78 of 141 (258164)
11-09-2005 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 2:29 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
Kind has absolutely NOTHING to do with either your discussion with RazD or the sub-topic of your message.
You are supposed to be addressing techniques of radiometric dating right now.
If you want to return to the issue of Kind we can address that part, but first try to complete the discussion on radiometric dating.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 2:29 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 3:33 PM jar has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 79 of 141 (258176)
11-09-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
11-09-2005 2:37 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
Actually his post contained three questions and the first I believe was concerning the definition of kind. I answered all three to be complete in my response. Perhaps you should read the entire post before interjecting your views into the conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 2:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 4:16 PM Evopeach has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 141 (258188)
11-09-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 3:33 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
actually I did read back to your post where you tried to define Kind. However, the discussion continuing from there on related to trying to correct your misunderstandings of radiometric dating. Before addressing your definition of kind, I think it's important to resolve the isue of radiometric dating. You have not yet completed the discussion with RAZD on the radiometric dating issue. One of the things we often see with Creationistas is that when they need to address one topic, they simply change direction and walk off as though something has been resolved.
Can you follow up on your discussion of radiometric dating with RAZD so that issue, at least gets resolved? There is no requirement to do so, you're free of course to simply change subjects. I'm perfectly sure there are many here who will be happy to discuss your definition of Kind.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 3:33 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:11 PM jar has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 81 of 141 (258202)
11-09-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
11-09-2005 4:16 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
Unless I am supposed to read the Wien paper there was nothing left to followup on that I can determine.
When one dismisses the RATE project as unscientific out of hand just because the people who performed it are people of faith and Creationists regardless of their academic credentials and the time and money spent, the excellent scholarship and referencing they provide and that the project was privately not publically funded simply demonstrates that there is no work that will ever be seriously considered by this forum from another perspective... yet I am to read, study and capitualate to your groups recommended readings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 4:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 5:18 PM Evopeach has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 82 of 141 (258204)
11-09-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 5:11 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
Nothing was dismissed simply because it is religious based. Many of us, myself included, are very religious. Classic Creationism is dismissed because it is simply wrong. All the evidence shows it's wrong. That's why no major Church supports it.
RATE is dismissed because their science is lousy. RAZD even provided you all the links to the evidence supporting his position. If you wish to remain in a state of willfull ignorance, that's fine. Simply say that you are not going to believe the evidence and everyone will let you go on your merry way.
But we are over in the science side of the house. Here you are expected to back up your assertions. Or, as I said above, you can simply say that regardless of the evidence, you are going to stick to your beliefs. No one will object to that.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:11 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:32 PM jar has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 83 of 141 (258205)
11-09-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 3:34 PM


On kinds
Since you seem to want responses on kinds, I'll comment here.
The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring.
Can you provide a reference?
On reading your definition the first time, my reaction was that all creatures are the same kind. That's on the basis of common descent.
On my second reading I tried to read it a little more strictly. Doing that, it seems to me that "kind" refers only to a single family.
Perhaps the definition is just a little too vague if it can lead to such a range of interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 3:34 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:42 PM nwr has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 84 of 141 (258208)
11-09-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
11-09-2005 5:18 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
I fully intend to read the material furnished. However the RATE project was published this year after 4 years of work by qualified people. Thus Wien could not have referenced or read or considered that work since his was a 2002 effort and that an update to an earlier version.
Your term lousy science... is that a studied highly academic term based on a careful review or just hip shooting at work you never glanced at and predetermined to attack both scientifically and personally. Never mind I know the answer to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 5:18 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2005 5:56 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 85 of 141 (258213)
11-09-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by nwr
11-09-2005 5:20 PM


Re: On kinds
The first few chapters of Genesis specifically refer to the seed within fruit ( and by logic all life) as the source for the new fruit which is kind following kind.
This can only mean the genome of a kind was unique in its reproduction via genes turned on and off , etc. to deliver a specific kind after kind sexual reproduction. In fact it is a specific and highly specicic and prediction and description of precisely what we have always experienced in reproduction. (unless you believe in saltation)
Of course after a while the effects of imperfection in reproduction set in plus the natural variation and other factors to permit homological and morphological vairaition including speciation.
Although imperfect I would say Genus was close to original kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 11-09-2005 5:20 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 11-09-2005 7:19 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 90 by nwr, posted 11-09-2005 8:10 PM Evopeach has replied

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


Message 86 of 141 (258219)
11-09-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 5:32 PM


RATE group publications
I fully intend to read the material furnished. However the RATE project was published this year after 4 years of work by qualified people. Thus Wien could not have referenced or read or considered that work since his was a 2002 effort and that an update to an earlier version.
I can't find anything published later than 2004. Do you have links to the final material you are talking about?
All the material from '04 back seems to have already been taken apart as noted by others. Could you point out the flaws in those critisisms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:32 PM Evopeach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Nighttrain, posted 11-09-2005 8:17 PM NosyNed has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 87 of 141 (258253)
11-09-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 5:42 PM


Re: On kinds
Evopeach writes:
In fact it is a specific and highly specicic and prediction and description of precisely what we have always experienced in reproduction.
The Biblical use of the word "kind", in Genesis and later in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is very much like the way we use the word "kind" today. What kind of dog is that? It's a Great Dane.
Great Danes produce Great Danes, but there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that the "kind" boundary can not be crossed. A Great Dane can still be bred with other "kinds" of dogs. Different kinds of cattle can be interbred. Different kinds of horses can be interbred.
In short, the Biblical concept of "kinds" is a loose, usually visual, classification - not a precise scientific term.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:42 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 141 (258255)
11-09-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 2:29 PM


Re: Different Radiometric techniques
I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal.
I'll get back to you on that after reading it.
Until then lets keep this on radiometric dating and answering the questions of the posts you are replying to eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 2:29 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 141 (258265)
11-09-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 3:34 PM


Kind Definition?
Evopeach, msg 65 writes:
1) The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring.
Does this mean only a parent is a kind? This is a pretty narrow definition, as the above definition means that two different varieties of the same species are not of a kind: one variety cannot bring forth offspring within the other varietal group (genetically impossible).
This is contradictory to the usual creationist usage to move "kind" up the tree from species to a higher level.
This can only refer to the genome which is determinative of what an offspring will be gentically, morphologically , etc.
Still can't get to variety {A} from variety {B}, even though {A} and {B} can interbreed and produce living breathing breeding hybrids.
So the original number of kinds would be precisely the original number of unique genomes before a single variation had taken effect.
Tautology: the number created would be the number created.
This would of course be orders of magnitude smaller than the number of species at a later point in time due to the built in range of variation in the genome and later the variation caused by interbreeding, mutations, etc.
Why?
There has been massive extinction of many more species than exist on the earth today, so therefore there had to be more varieties of genomes in the past than exist now.
By orders of magnetude. Point falsified.
Evopeach, msg 77 writes:
I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal
Looks to me like the answer has several logical problems with its construction and conclusions.
So, no, the answer is not satisfactory.
Or do you have another definition elsewhere?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*09*2005 07:50 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 3:34 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 90 of 141 (258279)
11-09-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 5:42 PM


Re: On kinds
The first few chapters of Genesis specifically refer to the seed within fruit ( and by logic all life) as the source for the new fruit which is kind following kind.
That makes it sound as if kind = species.
Although imperfect I would say Genus was close to original kind.
And now we are at genus.
According to Ken Ham, Noah's ark carried only one or two pairs of dinosaurs, and all the rest of the dinosaur kind evolved from that. So Ken Ham appears to want a much larger idea of "kind" than just genus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:42 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 10:06 AM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024