Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 212 of 269 (45818)
07-12-2003 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 9:28 PM


Buz,
1. Nobody knows the unknowns so far as the elements used in dating go in the timespan of scores of millions to billions of years ago. All scientists can go on is the status quo and what is observed today.
Logical flaw: Argument from ignorance. You are invoking unknowns as a counterargument. It is of the form, "it hasn't been proven half lives were always constant, therefore they weren't".
The FACT remains, that if there were mysterious unkowns in radiometric dating, then why the incredible concordance? You have always danced around directly addressing this issue.
Your argument is flawed on two points, it is an argument from ignorance, & it fails to deal with the issue in hand, & hence you invoke a slothful induction. Remember, you have presented no data as to why radiometric dating is highly concordant & yet in somehow includes a problem.
2. The Biblical track record for history/prophecy/fulfillment harmony is quite remarkable and lends credence to the rest of the Biblical record.
Logical flaw. Fallacy of composition. Because the bible is true in part, it is true in full. Every biblical prophecy that is non-trivial hasn't been fulfilled. I challenge you to open a new thread.
3. If the earth is old and life young, fossils created by sudden catastrophy would be entombed in old material rendering dating methods useless because of the contamination of the new by the old it is entombed in.
Been there, done it. You refused to answer any of my previous messages on the subject. You have refused to address any of the counter evidence of why this cannot be true. slothful induction, again.
4. Possibly some unknowns of past milleniums explain the success of harmony in some multiple dating methods because the same unknowns including the supernaturalism factors that affect one method may affect the other methods also causing error in all methods.
Invoking those unknowns again? Not very convincing. Anyway, I'm on a logical roll, soooo. Fallacy of exclusion. In some cases radiometric dating achieves similar results to non-radiometric dating techniques. Where's your "unknown" problem now? Not to mention the untestability of your unknown......
That's about it for a sumary of my argument and I've not much else to offer.
Mmmmm, that's six logical flaws on four points. It's OK making a claim without being knowledgeable about such things, but refusing to address the weight of evidence on the strength of a book no-one-knows-who-wrote-or-whether-they-knew-what-they-were-talking-about (itself a logical fallacy: Appeal to anonymous authority) is inexcusable.
I think a fair assessment of your argument would be, "Radiometric dating, & that fossils are as old as the rocks in which they reside must be wrong because it conflicts with my interpretation of my religion. I have no data that directly & reliably contradicts the current geological position, but it must be wrong". Right?
You have never directly dealt with the radiometric dating concordance issue, nor the conclusion, that is consistent with all observations, that fossils are buried in unlithified sediments of the same age. I directly deal with this aspect of your dataless argument here, here, here, & here.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-12-2003]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 213 of 269 (45821)
07-12-2003 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 9:28 PM


Well to go over your points
1) Scientists do have a good theoretical understanding of the issues and there is no plausible effect that could produce the results we see if the Earth were in fact young. Moreover a young Earth is inconsistent with other geological assumptions to the point where it was rejected.
By any rational standard this appeal to unknown effects which just somehow produced what we see is groundless speculation produced solely as an excuse to reject the clear evidence.
2) The Bible's record is in fact not very good at all. In fact your point here is implicitly circular because it results FROM your belief in the Bible.
3) This is an obvious falsehood.
4) Is more groundless speculation on the grounds on 1
If that is all you have to offer can we expect you to concede that you could be wrong and that the evidence is strongly against you ? Or will you keep on ignoring the facts as you have done in this thread or run away as you did over your claim of "frozen tropical animals" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 214 of 269 (45828)
07-12-2003 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 9:28 PM


Hi, Buzz!
Well, you one-upped yourself! Your post managed to ignore not only every single point from my Message 200, but everyone else's points, too. All you did was repeat your initial premises. Congratulations, Buzz, a new record!
Seriously, Buzz, if you don't address the points in the replies to you then this isn't a debate. If you're out of ammo then just say so, or just don't answer like you did in Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy, Frozen Tropical Animals and Buz's seashell claim, or just go away, or anything, but don't keep posting these inane answers just so you can post something. You're just wasting your time and ours. We already know what your position is - the purpose of the debate is to determine if your position is defensible. You entered the debate unarmed with the predictable result, and now you're doing a great imitation of a mindless zombie numbingly repeating a mantra of faith.
As I advised you in my previous message, you've had to absorb a lot of information in a short time, and it would take anyone a while to assimilate and make sense of it. I think you're rushing into the debate too soon. Go off for a while and study and reflect a bit. Many evolutionists are very religious and read the Bible (I read a couple chapters of Hebrews just last night), and it wouldn't hurt you to read a science book or two. If you're right you won't be able to prove it with arguments of ignorance. Just because your cause is just doesn't mean the war can be won unarmed.
If I may play a duel role in this post and speak from my administrator position, you may be wondering why the administrators are letting other members (like me) dump personal abuse on you. The reason is that you always break the rules first. You break rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines in almost every post. You've been warned by board administration about this, and I now just interpret the abuse people occasionally dole out to you as an expression of quite justified frustration. I'd post warnings about the behavior, but people would reply that you're already not following the guidelines and ask why I'm not doing anything about it. Well, the answer is that I already tried and you didn't modify your behavior. So now you're on your own. Maybe Adminnemooseus has some ideas. He's very reluctant to suspend you, and I won't take any action against anyone I'm actively debating, but my experience is that while an idiotic debate is taking place many people sit on the sideline and watch, and then when it ends activity suddenly picks up. If I weren't in active debate with you I'd suspend you in an instant. You need the break anyway, and I think I'd be doing you a favor.
On the flip side of the coin, your deserve praise for the admirably cordial way you've conducted yourself in a debate where you stand alone against a sea of somewhat grumpy adversaries.
By the way, you might think about why it is that you stand alone on one side while all the evolutionists stand together on the other. The reason is that Creationism isn't one theory, but many, OEC versus YEC merely being the highest level division of many. Creationism is fragmented into many different viewpoints because those viewpoints, having no factual basis, are chosen on the basis of personal preference. It's the same reason there are many religions but only one science, at least until you get to the scientific frontiers where new knowledge develops. You seem to have chosen one of the most conservative and difficult to defend Creationist positions, one that doesn't often persist in debate, and even to the point of rejecting many of AIG's very reasonable cautions about indefensible positions. You should have given greater consideration to AIG's well thought out advice, developed by long experience before you ever started visiting these boards, instead of discarding them to embarck on a Quixote-esque quest for glorious self-immolation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 9:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Buzsaw, posted 07-13-2003 10:14 PM Percy has not replied

  
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 269 (45921)
07-13-2003 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 9:28 PM


Buz,
Please come up with an argument other than I don’t want it to be so it can’t be true.
In the event that you can't think of anything more elaborate, perhaps you should consider investing in a lie. After all, some unknowns, including the supernaturalism factors may be discovered to prove you right.
Perhaps you think it is immoral to participate in the sciences. That would be worth debating. Common Buz, give us something

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 269 (45924)
07-13-2003 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Percy
07-12-2003 10:28 AM


quote:
Seriously, Buzz, if you don't address the points in the replies to you then this isn't a debate.
If you don't mind, I'll hang out in the free for all where I can do as many others do, picking and choosing which comments I deem worthy of my time to reply. When you're all alone on a multipage thread against five to ten opponents firing stuff at you rapidfire and you're limited in the time to think, research and reply, with a full time business to run and doing your bookwork in eves, etc, it's just not possible to comply with your regimentation of forum rules in these monitored forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 07-12-2003 10:28 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Admin, posted 07-13-2003 10:36 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 217 of 269 (45926)
07-13-2003 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Buzsaw
07-13-2003 10:14 PM


Buzz writes:
When you're all alone on a multipage thread against five to ten opponents firing stuff at you rapidfire and you're limited in the time to think, research and reply, with a full time business to run and doing your bookwork in eves, etc, it's just not possible to comply with your regimentation of forum rules in these monitored forums.
There is nothing in the Forum Guidelines regarding how long you take to reply. It is understood that many people have only limited available time. Take as much time as you need, though if you need more than a week you might drop a note to that effect so that people don't think you've abandoned the discussion.
------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Buzsaw, posted 07-13-2003 10:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by wj, posted 07-13-2003 11:51 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 219 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2003 12:39 AM Admin has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 269 (45929)
07-13-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Admin
07-13-2003 10:36 PM


quote:
Take as much time as you need,...
Such tolerance has not worked on the Frozen Tropical Animals tread where Buz could only provide irrelevent quotes and then ran away from further discussion. And Buz has repeatedly failed to address issues directly relevent to his distorted view of geology - the coincidence of various lines of evidence for the dating of the K/T boundary being the most obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Admin, posted 07-13-2003 10:36 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2003 12:48 AM wj has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 269 (45930)
07-14-2003 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Admin
07-13-2003 10:36 PM


quote:
There is nothing in the Forum Guidelines regarding how long you take to reply. It is understood that many people have only limited available time. Take as much time as you need, though if you need more than a week you might drop a note to that effect so that people don't think you've abandoned the discussion.
But I've a problem with threats of suspension, as I'm not accustomed to rule breaking in anything. It appears from your admonitions I've broken a number of them and I can't deal with that. Then too, I'm thick skinned, but simply don't need these meanspirited insults when I don't consider some posts worth my comment or don't get to others in time to suit the poster. I get bugged about some technical stuff beyond my ability to respond intelligently, so I choose to leave it pass and get all heck for it and now I either respond or I'm breaking rules.
In effect one is censored for participation in scientific discussion without an acceptable amount of established cohesive academia thought, or if one resorts to common sense and on occasion the supernatural factor, some of which on occasion collides with naturalistic scientific theory.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Admin, posted 07-13-2003 10:36 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by nator, posted 07-14-2003 12:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 269 (45931)
07-14-2003 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by wj
07-13-2003 11:51 PM


Wi, insolent people like you just don't get it. I'm one person trying to respond to a host of stuff from a host of folks. I was busy on a couple of other threads trying to keep up with what I deemed the most pertinent posts for response with my limited time to post. I'm not highly educated and somewhat of a slow thinker. I may spend a half hour to an hour on some posts, as no doubt some others do. I must resort to research and some search links. If you can't handle that, then please go and talk to someone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by wj, posted 07-13-2003 11:51 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by wj, posted 07-14-2003 4:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 269 (45934)
07-14-2003 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Buzsaw
07-14-2003 12:48 AM


Buzsaw, if you are not prepared to back up your assertions (eg. frozen tropical animals in Arctic ice are evidence for Noah's flood, or all radiometric datings are wrong) then don't make the assertion in the first place. Why is it incumbent on us to know whether you have any support for the statements which you make or if you have to run away and actually find something to support them when they are called into question?
Is it insolent to accurately report your past behaviour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2003 12:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 222 of 269 (45970)
07-14-2003 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Buzsaw
07-14-2003 12:39 AM


quote:
In effect one is censored for participation in scientific discussion without an acceptable amount of established cohesive academia thought,
Or, put another way, in a scientific discussion, one is required to back up, with vertifiable, high-quality evidence, what one claims.
It would be one thing if you came into the discussion admitting that you don't know some things, but this is not what you have done.
You write in very definitive terms, as if you are an expert and as if you know a great deal about the subjects under discussion. You then get called to the caret for shooting your mouth off about things you have no understanding of.
Why is this so strange to you?
quote:
or if one resorts to common sense and on occasion the supernatural factor, some of which on occasion collides with naturalistic scientific theory.
Common sense led people to believe for many centuries that us that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us and that demons caused mental illness.
The scientific method is designed to compensate for the great limitations of our "common sense".
As for your "supernaturalisms", you are free to believe in magical solutions to the factual and logical holes you dig yourself into, but then we are not having a scientific discussion any longer.
If you want to claim the power of science, then you have to play by the rules of science.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2003 12:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by mark24, posted 07-14-2003 6:08 PM nator has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 223 of 269 (46009)
07-14-2003 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by nator
07-14-2003 12:20 PM


All,
This has turned into one of those "Salty" threads. Buz has made a claim, refuses to address any counterpoints/data, & the discussion has now settled on as to why Buz can ignore any facts that contradict him, why he doesn't need to address particular threads, & why he feels able to ignore posters making valid, relevant arguments.
Lacking anything else of any real substance to say, we have now regressed to the "bible quote" stage of the proceedings, as if that is providing actual evidence.......
That said, I feel the evo's would mostly agree on a single question to be answered, I say this so Buz can answer this salient point, rather than feel he has to respond to a half dozen of us saying essentially the same thing. Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too? Would everyone agree?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by nator, posted 07-14-2003 12:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Coragyps, posted 07-14-2003 6:26 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 226 by nator, posted 07-14-2003 9:44 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 224 of 269 (46012)
07-14-2003 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by mark24
07-14-2003 6:08 PM


I think I could agree with that, and abandon the carbon 14 thread. Buz, Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by mark24, posted 07-14-2003 6:08 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by wj, posted 07-14-2003 8:25 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 269 (46024)
07-14-2003 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Coragyps
07-14-2003 6:26 PM


Agreed. Let's see Buzsaw at least try to address one issue which is fundamental to his bald assertions.
Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Coragyps, posted 07-14-2003 6:26 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 226 of 269 (46029)
07-14-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by mark24
07-14-2003 6:08 PM


quote:
That said, I feel the evo's would mostly agree on a single question to be answered, I say this so Buz can answer this salient point, rather than feel he has to respond to a half dozen of us saying essentially the same thing. Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too? Would everyone agree?
Yes, I completely agree that this is the most important question for Buz to answer.
I'd also like to remind Buz that this is essentially the original question of this thread, and was a response to Buz's claim that all radiometric dating methods were bogus.
...just want it clear that this is a response to a claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by mark24, posted 07-14-2003 6:08 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2003 10:54 PM nator 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