Validity of Radiometric Dating

Sorry, this is getting confused. I'm not talking about that paper which is well enough organized and explained, I was talking about a Wikipedia article, I forget why now, about the K-T boundary as a typical example of how such phenomena are presented to laypeople. Definitely typical and definitely irritating.

Do you understand how Wiki works?

Edited by jar, : change sub-title

It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

Edited by Faith, : Get rid of all caps and change a couple words

It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

Popular accounts are just that, popular accounts. The reasoning is readily available even in that wiki article if you follow the footnotes.

It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

You can get increasing levels of detail and the reasoning behind it in libraries. The evidence for the topics we have been discussing take up whole floors of major university libraries. Feel free to access that information to the level you desire.

So don't moan that the information presented to the public doesn't contain the detail of a Ph.D. dissertation.

But I fail to see why you should care--you don't rely on evidence anyway.

That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this. Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

And TRUE (or TRVE) science is what creationists say it is?

What a joke!

I've advised you before, stay far away from science. You simply aren't qualified.

You don't know one thing about what I'm qualified for. The only thing I've ever objected to is the HISTORICAL sciences. Get a clue.

You don't know one thing about what I'm qualified for. The only thing I've ever objected to is the HISTORICAL sciences. Get a clue.

Not so, we know exactly what you are qualified for--by reading hundreds of your posts.

You feel you can pick and choose among various fields all of which use the scientific method based on whether or not you like the results.

And your posts are a horrible mix of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, denial, obfuscation, and anti-science mumbo-jumbo, mixed liberally with things you just make up. Collectively, your posts are just about the opposite of what science really is.

I'd sooner discuss science with a first grader--at least they are capable of learning.

I wish you would go discuss science with a first grader and leave me alone because you don't get anything I'm saying. Again, the only "science" I've ever objected to is HISTORICAL science. You obviously don't know the difference but there is a true science that I do not have any problem with. Go talk to your first grader please.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure Faith I see what you are saying. People are being told the truth! As a creationist it is your duty to use lies and slander to suppress it.

Popular accounts are popular accounts. People want them. There is nothing suspicious or evil about providing them.

It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact.

Yeah, and all your absolutist proclamations are totally different! A little less typical Christian hypocrisy, please!

You repeatedly make all kinds of unfounded proclamations. Show us your reasoning! In its totality! After all, you demand no less of others, so you must be ready to do the same yourself.

Or are you forgetting that Pharisee teaching:

quote:

---

Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is just explanation.
(Rabbi Hillel, 20BCE)

---

But then, you have already told us how you would treat any source that met those criteria. You would ignore it completely!

A little less typical Christian hypocrisy, please!

Sometimes. Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations.

No that's not the idea. They talk in terms of events as if they were facts, this happened, that happened, so many years ago. There was a meteor that killed off all the dinosaurs. Stated as fact.

That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this. Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

Well, I looked at WP's actual article on the KT boundary.

* It has references to a score of peer-reviewed papers and half-a-dozen academic books.

* It describes the reasoning behind the conclusions, for example:

The evidence for the Alvarez impact theory is supported by chondritic meteorites and asteroids which have an iridium concentration of ~455 parts per billion, much higher than ~0.3 parts per billion typical of the Earth's crust. Chromium isotopic anomalies found in Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary sediments are similar to those of an asteroid or a comet composed of carbonaceous chondrites.

* So far from leaving "NO room for uncertainty" the article presents multiple hypotheses, and while it apparently favors Alvarez, it cautiously describes his idea as a hypothesis rather than a theory.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm sure I can find scores of examples of what I'm talking about and it's no less objectionable with the footnotes.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure I can find scores of examples of what I'm talking about and it's no less objectionable with the footnotes.

And yet the one example you gave turned out to be made up.

No, as I said it is a typical example. There is no excuse for presenting nonfactual material as if it were fact.