Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 221 (310037)
05-07-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sailorstide
05-01-2006 12:12 AM


quote:
Is it or is it not true that dating fossils using carbon dating is not an exact science?
Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:12 AM sailorstide has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 05-07-2006 4:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 198 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 12:55 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 221 (407013)
06-23-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


Arguing about dating is to be had against evolutionists and evolutionsists.
I'm not sure why you think this. Radiometric dating (and other methods of dating) have allowed us to construct a remarkably consistent history of the earth, life on earth, and the universe at large. This poses a problem for creationists. They really haven't been able to explain why different methods of dating give the same consistent picture of the history of the earth, except that it was a whim of god.
-
Well, you all know modern scienece rejects any supernatural explanation.
I know no such thing. Modern science presumes that the universe behaves with remarkably regularity, and modern science tries to figure out what that regularity is (which we call the laws of nature), and then to use that regularity to come to conclusions about the part of the universe that we cannot see (like the past). Now, if the supernatural are events that violate the natural regularity of the universe, then science does not have the tools to study that -- although science can, presumably, determine that some events that appear to violate the known regularity of the universe occur much more often than can be explained through imprecise measurements.
But then, I don't know if it would be possible to determine whether these anomalous events are due to the supernatural or due to natural causes that science just doesn't yet understand completely.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 1:52 AM WS-JW has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 221 (407235)
06-25-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by fooj
06-24-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
My vocabulary is off here then.
If you don't really know the subject enough to even understand the vocabulary, then why do you think this website you found has anything worthwhile to say? They could be completely full of crap (and they are), and you wouldn't really know, would you?
-
Think volcanic surface and the impossiblity of old rock being on it.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that it is impossible for recent volcanic material to date old? But we already know it's possible for volcanic action to bring old rocks to the surface.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 10:33 PM fooj has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 221 (407277)
06-25-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by fooj
06-24-2007 2:40 PM


Bingo!
Heh. Thanks for pointing out the Common Sense Science site, fooj -- it's a hoot. I have to admit, it is rather refreshing to see crackpot junk displayed in a professional looking website with well written articles, even if the articles themselves display a lack of knowledge about the subjet matter. It certainly compares favorably against the Time Cube guy.
But I was intrigued by their description of the modern physics "world-view". Does this page seem familiar to anyone? It reads just like a creationist description of the evolutionary biology "world-view", paticularly in just making up the mainstream philosophical position (and the use of word "world-view").
That, and their interest in radiometric dating, made me a tad suspicious, and, whadyaknow, I found what I was looking for:
quote:
The two worldviews of origins, development, and nature of physical reality are known as atomism and creationism. The former is basically pantheistic evolution, while the latter is the Judeo-Christian worldview. The fundamental beliefs of either philosophy of life require assumptions and a theory of matter to integrate science and religious beliefs.
I can't tell from this if their primary motivation is to support creationism, but they do seem to be primarily motivated by religious beliefs of the nature of the world around us, and they are determined to force the world into their preconcieved beliefs. Their site is another to be added to the list of such crackpot science as Walt Brown's Bumber Car Colliding Continents and Russell Humphreys' General Relativity-inspired time dilation model.
Edited by Chiroptera, : changed the last sentence of the second paragraph

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 2:40 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:17 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 221 (407301)
06-25-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Bingo!
They have the science degrees and you don't.
Actually, I do.
-
In an earlier post, fooj wrote:
...they don't get much peer-review because they are basicly ignored.
So people with science degrees ignore these folks. What does that tell you?
Edited by Chiroptera, : Fixed tag.
Edited by Chiroptera, : This time for sure.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:17 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:36 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 221 (407307)
06-25-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Bingo!
quote:
Do you have a degree in physics?
Yes.
But this is beside the point, don't you think? After all, if degrees mattered, then the fact that the vast majority of people with science degrees (in physics) accept the standard physical theories means that the Common Sense Science people are wrong.
Or, if the majority of people with science degrees are wrong about this, then it shows that people with science degrees can be wrong.
You can't have it both ways. You aren't going to win this argument by looking at degrees. This argument can only be decided by looking at the evidence. Now, what phenomena are predicted by these peoples' theory? Have these phenomena been observed? That is going to be the deciding factor as to whether there is any reason to discuss these theories.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:36 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 221 (407312)
06-25-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Enough, I didn't expect a debate, nor do I desire to win one now
This isn't surprisng. You seem to be completely out of your depth here, and not even able to see just how ludicrous the Common Sense Science people are.
Take this example, their spinning ring model for elementary particles:
quote:
Dave Bergman developed and published (in 1990) the Spinning Ring model of elementary particles. Charge near the surface of the thin ring rotates at the speed of light.
The problem is that anything that rotates is accelerating. Nothing can rotate without accelerating. And accelerating charges radiate electromagnetic energy. If elementary particles had charges that were rotating, they would be radiationg energy; not only do we not see any energy being constantly radiated by each and every atom all the time, but by losing energy the rotation would have to stop.
This was a real problem with the Bohr model for the atom -- the one that pictured electrons rotating about the nucleus like a tiny solar system. That is why the Bohr atomic model had to be discarded. This "spinning ring" model has the same problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:33 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 221 (407319)
06-25-2007 5:32 PM


Charlatans or sincere quacks?
Here is a list of their papers that you can purchase. But, strangely enough, there is no indication of where they were published (if they were ever published, besides this website), nor do they have abstracts associated with them. I have a strange feeling that these aren't scientific papers.
-
Wow! Did I call it or what? Here is their page of recommended links. Except for their own site, every one of these is a creationist site. Heh, even that moron, Walt Brown. If these guys are going to put in a plug for Walt Brown, how can we take anything they say seriously? And there is a site presenting dinosaur and human footprints together!
Although Common Sense Science doesn't itself present itself as a creationist website, this page (and the constant mention of "Judeo-Christian world-view" on other pages) makes it difficult to determine whether these people are just a support organization for creationism, or whether these people can't really understand the picture that modern science presents to us and are sincerely trying to extricate themselves from their intellectual dilemma.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Really bad typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-25-2007 5:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 146 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:55 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 221 (407326)
06-25-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by fooj
06-25-2007 5:50 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
While I agree the spinning ring idea is crap....
Which makes it strange that you find their conclusions interesting since this spinning ring idea is the very foundation of their theories and the basis of their conclusions.
-
...we see EMR(electromagnetic radition) from atoms all the time.
If by "all the time" you mean "when placed in an external electromagnetic field" (or some other perturbation) then, sure; after all, we do need a source of energy for that electromagnetic radiation.
But an atom just sitting there, minding its own business, without any perturbations (like an external electromagnetic field) will not be emitting any electromagnetic radiation. After all, if it did then we would have a source of new energy, a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:50 PM fooj has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 221 (407327)
06-25-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by fooj
06-25-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Charlatans or sincere quacks?
They're eccentrics.
They sure are!
-
What did you expect?
I dunno; you are the one who brought them up as if they had something relevant to say.
-
You are very cocky too.
No, just easily amused by clowns. I find the Keystone Cops funny, too.
-
Added by edit:
Speaking of Klown Science, I see that it's John Davison's birthday today. (Give John our wishes for a happy birthday, Martin!).
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:55 PM fooj has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 221 (436901)
11-27-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by RAZD
11-27-2007 8:47 PM


Re: From SophistiCat on Age Correlations.
Yeah, I've been following that thread (and even snuck onto the battle field to shoot the wounded), and I have to admit that I'm somewhat disappointed. I expect that one of the Creationist Big Names, and one with actual science credentials, would have been able to put together a much better presentation. But Baumgardner sounds no different from any of the rank and file nutcakes that we get here on a regular basis.

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2007 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2007 8:36 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 221 (437626)
11-30-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
11-28-2007 8:36 PM


Re: From SophistiCat on Age Correlations.
Heh. Now Dr. Baumgardner has "helpfully" summed up his and Dr. Bertsche's exchange in an article at AiG.

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2007 8:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2008 1:21 AM Chiroptera 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