|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Wow, that is a really poignant essay about Creationist's mental "information gatekeepers".
I hadan't read that one before. It's really good, thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Am I to understand that you think it is less likely that all of the dozen or so radiometric dating methods are giving consistent results among each other over the thousands of thousands of samples tested over decades, than it is likely that there is a whole bunch of stuff about radioactive decay that we don't know, including magical "supernaturalisms", that just HAPPENS to work out in such a way as to coincidentally LOOK AS THOUGH THE EARTH WAS OLD? Isn't it the conclusion of a rational, reasonable person, by contrast, that the reason the various methods return matching dates is BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIABLE? The above "explanation" of yours, Buz, is the most tortured and convoluted I have seen in a long time. Doesn't it hurt to twist your mind around like that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, THAT explains a great deal.
quote: So, you admit to not understanding the "nuts and bolts" (i.e. the basics) of these dating methds, but disbelieve them all because of the use of the word "possibilities" is used twice in a short layman-level explanation of two methods?? You must get pretty sore from all of the twisting and contorting, don't you? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I'm not fighting.
I'm debating. (OK, sometimes I poke him with a pointy stick a little bit.) Anyway, Buz just says some of the most outlandish things and I then challenge him to support what he says. He generally does not respond to me any more. I wonder why that is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, why did you bring up your education if you didn't think it relevant. I certainly seemed to me that you were pretty clearly saying that because you have no degree above high school you don't understand the "nuts and bolts" of the dating methods. This is, I surmised, why you did not respond directly to Rei's specific example and instead said that you only had a high school education.
quote: Well, that WAS the only comment you made in response to Rei's explanation of the specific dating method. I do not think it unreasonable to surmise that this was the best rebuttal you could provide, considering you had nothing else to say.
quote: ...and this has been addressed ad nauseum in this and other threads. You simply refuse to acknowledge the facts. Simply answer the following, Buz; 1) How can all the various dating methods be bogus/inaccurate in such a way as to return amazingly consistent results between and among all methods? 2) What is your evidence that decay rates were significantly different in the past than they are today?
quote: Perhaps you missed my message to you a page or two ago in this thread. Please choose one or two unambiguous prophecies which you consider to have been fulfilled and list them here. Please include non-Biblical evidence (i.e. independent evidence) as evidence.
quote: So, God is a deceiver?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: We have tree ring chronologies dating back 10,000 years. How do you explain this? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-19-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024