Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
571 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, nwr, PaulK, Pollux, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 564 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,210 Year: 4,322/6,534 Month: 536/900 Week: 60/182 Day: 32/16 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Inactive Member

Message 126 of 153 (574256)
08-15-2010 12:35 AM

as to the suspension and reasons, i make no comment.

Your argument is incoherent. You say that dating techniques are calling God a liar and yet you claim that the Bible doesn't pinpoint when God created the heavens and the earth.What makes more sense?

before answering that question one has to consider the ramifications of the former has on the whole bible and life. and there are several issues to be dealt with in doing that: 1. who has th eright or authority to determine that story an allegory? 2. who gave them that right and what right/authority did they have? 3. if it is open to any and all to make their own interpretations as to what is or isn't an allegory then anarchy prevails over the Bible and a fight ensues as to who is right. 4.what evidence do they have that it is an allegory? they can't say that science says evolution makes it an allegory for science can't prove that or that the process of evolution acrtually exists (it can't put the process in a test tube and study it) 5. too much subjectivity- everyone is human and not greater than another thus whose opinion is correct (read 'the end of reason' by ravi zacharias for more on that type of argument).

these factors all come into play when you want to choose the former and pretty soon you end up with anarchy because everyone has their own ideas and want to implement them or if there is a strong enough person to force his will, when he dies and another person takes his place, he will change everything to his way and so until anrachy arrives on the scene.

The isochron method DOES tell us how many they started with "when the decline initiated".

let me answer you by an example as i believe that that is impossible. say i give you a jar of jelly beans that is 3/8ths full and ask you to tell me how many i started with. you say that is simple because you think the jar was completely full when the decline of the jelly beans started. so you use your systems to measure the beans, the space and figure that a non-candy eater would take maybe one or two out a week (or whatever) and you calculate a total number and give it to me.

i tell you that you are incorrect because the jar was only 3/4s full when i started to take beans out of the jar. you cannot calculate how much was in the jar because that is an unknown subject to many factors.

now to the article that i went through this morning:

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective Dr. Roger C. Wiens

The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the Earth's rocks are that old...Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the Earth's surface disappearing under other parts of the Earth's surface, re-melting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say--from this line of evidence--is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.

if this keeps happening then how can you be sure that the rocks dated
were the original ones? or that corruption didn't alter its dating components or the dating components didn't arrive when they were supposed to?

When the asteroids were formed in space, they cooled relatively quickly (some of them may never have gotten very warm), so all of their rocks were formed within a few million years. The asteroids' rocks have not been remelted ever since, so the ages have generally not been disturbed. Meteorites that show evidence of being from the largest asteroids have slightly younger ages

purely assumption for maybe the asteroids broke off of a larger rock? no clock on the cooling period no observation on the formation, it is assumed this is the way they were formed but no evidence to verify and confirm/

Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up.

another bad example because if one looks at only this limited evidence , which is copied today on todays paper and assignments , abraham lincoln could have lived at any time. it doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be wrong.

The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing

this just skates over the issues and ignores too many factors that play a part. 1. the dating systems come from like-minded people, 2. just because they agree doesn't mean they are correct. if the opposite is true then all a criminal would have to do is have 5-10 people agree when and where he was and the prosecutor would have to let him go free, whether it was true or not. agreeance doesn't mean truth.

Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope

this is where he lost all credibility. a telescope is not a time machine and it does not look back into earth's past nor the universe's. it is looking at an event unrelated to origins and it is assumed that those events are the same kind as the claimed origins of earth.

what they are really looking at is, for example, a simple star flaming out and has nothing to do with anything in history, it just finished its time in existence just like people do.

there is no way to provide any evidence that a star dying out has anything to do with the big bang or evolutionary process nor is it evidence for claimed original conditions because once again there is no way to prove the earth's original condition was like that star's.

it is all pure conjecture, speculation, wishfull thinking and assumption.

which brings me to my concluding remarks:

the dating systems operate upon assumption only-

1. it is assumed that age helps determine method
2. it is assumed that origins took place as secular science claims
3. it ignores other alternatives which would throw dates off.
4. it is assumed that agreeance means correct
5. it ignores the fact that there is no way to verify those dates with actual ancient records.
6. it is assumed that receiving, rentention and declination go as theoried by modern scientists.

it could go on and with each one you cannot provide scientific evidence to verify and confirm your assumptions. with the half life of many dating systems to large to confirm, it is just impossible to know for certain if one is correct or not.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Remove extraneous quote dBCode.

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2010 1:18 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 129 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-15-2010 3:48 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 132 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-15-2010 4:57 AM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 135 by subbie, posted 08-15-2010 9:02 AM archaeologist has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 128 of 153 (574266)
08-15-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Coyote
08-15-2010 1:18 AM

Re: Belief
As Heinlein noted,

Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Your posts are so full of belief that you seem incapable of learning anything.

That's just sad. And a real waste, both of your intellect and our time.

if that is all you have then i would say heinlein is wrong and i will leave it up to the mods to determine if it is on topic or another personal attack from you.

one of the problems faced by believers when dealing with the secular world is this very idea. the secular world only considers people educated or learned something if the believer goes the secular route. that just isn't so.

now, i will stipulate that many, many evangelical christians and creationists do not study well enough to discuss these issues but to assume that learning is only in the realm of the secular displays an ignorance that is hard to combat or convince otherwise.

one of the reasons i read non-christian books is that i am frustrated with the lack of scholarship, investigation, research, exploration, discussion and so on that goes on with most christian works. one such book was Erwin Lutzer's The Cross and the Swastika. What a frustrating book as it did not explore the issue as i had hoped and when i complained to a christian friend of many decades i almost lost a friendship because that author was one of his favorites and he couldn't handle the critique of is work.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2010 1:18 AM Coyote has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 130 of 153 (574269)
08-15-2010 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by shalamabobbi
08-15-2010 3:48 AM

I don't have time tonight to respond. I'd like to take up your jelly bean example and relate that to the isochron method of dating.

i am doing some more reading and i found this:

One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, meaning that they all formed at about the same time from a common pool of material in which the relevant elements and isotopes were distributed reasonably homogeneously.

that is a very big problem given what the author of the article wrote about very few rocks being 4 billion years old.

and here your author seems to agree with me:

All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time

which means that you are basing the dates upon ideals and assumptions that the certain conditions were present throughout those 4 billion to say 3 million years before the sample was dated.

that is a very big assumption to make.

I remember you made a comment "you americans" in a post and would like to know whether english is your native language

not every native english speaker is american or speaks the american version of the language.

**one more question, how does the researcher taking the samples of rock know that the rock he is taking samples from is a complete rock and not one that may have splintered over the billons of years?

such splintering would throw off the dates as well.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-15-2010 3:48 AM shalamabobbi has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2010 4:15 AM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 08-15-2010 7:39 AM archaeologist has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 134 of 153 (574291)
08-15-2010 8:35 AM

You're obviously strongly influenced by what you believe the Bible says. You believe not only that Biblical testimony trumps real world evidence, but that your interpretation of the Bible trumps anyone else's outside your faith group and that it even gives you the right to declare who is a Christian and who is not.

But while it's fascinating watching someone demonstrate fundamentalist faith in real time, that's not what this thread is about. If you'd like to discuss the Biblical foundation for your faith then there are many threads for that over in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy. Here in forums like this one we discuss the scientific evidence.

you secularists are all the same, you want dialogue or discussion but you have to keep tilting the playing field inyour direction. if you can't wirte the rules then you do not want to play.

i have proven, using a man who lost his faith, that objectivity is impossible yet you keep wanting to force it because you do not want to hear the truth nor contradictory arguments to your viewpoints. Dever states the impossibility and quotes James Barr saying the same thing thus i will continue to post from my perspective as it is just as valid or more so than you think yours is.

Most of your objections to dating methods seem to be based upon a belief that we couldn't possibly know with any certainty what we claim to know. Rest assured that we can know these things with as much certainty as that Lincoln and the Civil War occurred in the 19th century. If you truly believe that much uncertainty surrounds Lincoln and the Civil War then there's no point in trying to convince you of anything, so if you were serious about that then it would be good to know up front so that those presenting science to you can make an informed decision about whether they're wasting their time.

and i can tell you that you do not know as you use assumption for fact and my point about lincoln was very simple--you can cast a shadow of a doubt on anything by using the evidence at hand. i did not say he was not alive during the civil war but pointed out that you could make the case of his existence being earlier than agreed upon just by using the evidence.

There are very few places on Earth where the rocks approach 4 billion years in age, but Greenland is one of those places

last i looked greenland wasn't the whole earth and its tempatures and situation would do a lot to alter the isotopes in those rocks. instead of going graph by graph, i will just say htins, all you did was reprint what i have already read from authors who think like you. that is not being objective but biased and presenting your point of view when you disallow mine.

Uranium dating, the topic of this thread, is not an isochron method

amazing. but if you would actually look at th eposts, i was not the one who changed it but address those posts written to me. that is all i do.

here are a couple of articles that point out the flaws of isochron dating:



i do not really care if you accept them or not but if you dismiss them then i know for sure you only want to hear what you want to hear and there is no point in continuing a discussion.

you all are under the false impression that you or science gets to make the rules but as i have pointed out, origins and akll of its sub-topics belong to religion NOT science. at best you all are usurpers and think you can take over. you can't.

the other thing is, if you do not want the truth, i can't force it on you so i will take the night to tyhink about continuing here as i am not into wasting my time with closed minded andintolerant people who cannot allow for theological and christianpoints of view.

secular science is not science, it is a purposefully designed area of science to avoid the truth by looking in the wrong direction for the wrong answers simply because secularists want anything but the Bible.

as i said, origins is a one time supernatural act which cannot and will not be repeated and you are wasting your time and money trying to construct something that never existed in the first place.

if anyone wants to continue to sincerely and honestly discuss with me, if i do not return you can find me at:


i do not care if you disagree with me just back up your points with credible links to legitimate sources. oh and make sure you read the rules first because yo may not like the level playing field.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 08-15-2010 9:54 AM archaeologist has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 137 of 153 (574395)
08-15-2010 5:10 PM

i have decided to refrain from posting in the science section of this website as its rules do not allow the truth to be told. secularists and evolutionists forget that they and science do not get to make the rules.

the rules have already been established by God: is it right or wrong, truth or error and you are either for God or against Him. the scientific method has no bearing on these rules nor doe sit have the authority to over-rule or change them. neither is it the final determiner of what is right or wrong, it is too limited and deals with incomplete data, and it is not immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin. it is also easy to manipulate, fabricate results, lie and bend to political, academic, social pressures-- rendering it moot.

its ever changing nature has demonstrated that it, and secular science in general, does not have the ability or capibility to discover the truth and has blown its opportunity to be trusted to accomplish that task. its methods are unfair, unjust, and wrong as it seeks answers in the wrong direction and the wrong places.

creation is a one time supernatural act that will not be repeated, making it outside of secular science's scope and boundaries. Origins is not an issue for science because it cannot go back in time and observe and extrapolation backwards does not mean they got it right, it jsut means they do not want the truth.

all secular science and secular scientific method are are the blind leading the blind nothing more. any so -called christian who accepts secular science and its teachings have been deceived, lead astray from the truth and hve comrpoised their faith and it is highly doubtful they are still believers for they continue to disobey God by following the secular world into lies.

if you want to continue to sincerely and honestly discuss withme then either find me in a non-scientific forum or over at www.archiesarena.com - push the discussion button. and feel free to discuss but make sure you can accept the rules first.

secularists and evolutionists only delude themselves by saying they want discussion with creationists then make the rulse so that the creationist cannot participate correctly. it is one thing they do not understand, science has no authority to determine how something is discussed, or declare how something was done when it involves the past as they were not there. they just donot want the Bible or its truth, so they will continue to be willingly deceived.

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 08-15-2010 5:15 PM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 139 by bluescat48, posted 08-15-2010 5:40 PM archaeologist has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022