Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
73 online now:
DrJones*, frako, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, PaulK, Tangle (8 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,078 Year: 4,826/23,288 Month: 1,731/1,286 Week: 45/353 Day: 45/45 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reliable Radiometric Dates as an Artifact of Assumptions
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 30 (589170)
10-31-2010 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Itinerant Lurker
10-28-2010 3:38 PM


Shuckin' and Jivin'
The short answer is that Ryan is wrong about the point of disagreement.

I don't see any way you'll ever make any progress arguing with Ryan R. RR believes that scientists are perpetrating a fraud in order to discredit the Bible. Since he believes in a scientific conspiracy to throw out Bible supporting data, he'll never believe he's being shown all of the data, and he'll never accept that any data he collects as a layperson that appears to support a 6000 year old earth is wrong.

My suggestion:

Don't buy Ryan any lab equipment. Instead ask him why the RATE group's study for ICR shows that billions of years worth of radioactive decay have occurred. ICR simply insists that the decay must have happened in a couple of days.

http://www.icr.org/article/rate-group-release-book/

The truth is that no scientist is doing work aimed at verifying or rejecting literal Bible dates using carbon or any other radiometric dating. Thus they wouldn't conspire to hide the data. Even ICR does not seem to attack the data, but instead attempts to attack scientific interpretation. There is no scientific conspiracy and very few if any seem to believe in a conspiracy that works the way Ryan R suggests.

There is plenty of irrefutable evidence that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, that the human race is many tens of thousands of years old, and that dinosaur fossils are on the order of hundreds of millions of years old. The evidence for the age of the universe in particular has absolutely nothing to do with radiometric dating.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 10-28-2010 3:38 PM Itinerant Lurker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 8:50 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 30 (589184)
10-31-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
10-31-2010 8:50 AM


Re: Shuckin' and Jivin'
Percy writes:

You might have meant to express this a bit differently?

You mean in some way that isn't competely wrong?

I should have said that secular scientists are not doing work for the purpose of discrediting the Bible's creation account. Data that are Genesis friendly would not be rejected just because they support YEC chronology.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 8:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 30 (589431)
11-02-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Itinerant Lurker
11-01-2010 11:17 PM


Re: Thanks
Intinerant writes:

but were simply somehow unaware of their own bias that was skewing their results. . .somehow. . .or something

Doesn't this suspicion require that there be essentially no scientifically trained folks that are Christians? Surely not every scientist could have this bias.

Scientists aren't calculating the margin of error for radiometric dating accurately
-Scientists are ignoring anomalous dates that don't agree and
thus misrepresent the data
-Scientists aren't calibrating their testing equipment correctly

With respect to calibration and margins of error, the claim is pretty silly for dates assigned to the age of the earth and the age of dinosaurs. No error bars are going to bring those dates inside of 10,000 years. My understanding is that valid U238 dates, for example, are always going to be greater than about 1 million years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 11-01-2010 11:17 PM Itinerant Lurker has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 30 (590103)
11-05-2010 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Itinerant Lurker
11-05-2010 8:18 PM


Re: Parchance
Itinerant.

What is the technical expertise of the people you are debating? Are they really going to be able to analyze the data they are asking you for or are they just blowing smoke?

More than likely I'm simply feeding into it by actually answering all these questions

Yep. And the high fiving will start the moment you quit posting!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 11-05-2010 8:18 PM Itinerant Lurker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 11-06-2010 3:05 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 30 (590157)
11-06-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by kbertsche
11-06-2010 9:40 AM


Satisfied??
It should be a good start, but I don't believe the professional researcher will ever be satisfied. The data contradicts the hyper-literal reading of Genesis and is wrong by definition. Scientists are incompetent and biased even when they are trying to criticize the work of their peers. It's simply a matter of finding uncovering the error or the conspiracy.

If Ryan were debating in a neutral forum, he'd have to be the one to provide proof that the scientist doing dating make the errors he's claiming. But in this case, Itinerant is on the hook for supplying indisputable evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 9:40 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 30 (590199)
11-06-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2010 4:09 AM


Sample size vs Population Size.
Doc, I think the '20,000 is about infinite' was sloppily stated but the intended meaning is not too far from the truth.

The skeptical statistician was probably talking about the random sample size needed to sample a given population size. For a 95% confidence interval the random sample size does indeed increase very slowly as the population size increase above 20000. For a population of 20,000, the required sample size is not much different from that required for a population of 107 or even for infinitely large populations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 4:09 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020