Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
508 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Phat, ringo, Tangle (7 members, 501 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,329 Year: 4,441/6,534 Month: 655/900 Week: 179/182 Day: 12/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 91 of 207 (733466)
07-17-2014 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by herebedragons
07-17-2014 12:45 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Creationists seldom if ever admit it, but to them microevolution is observed evolution and macroevolution is that which takes to long for it to be observed

Personally, I don't think this is all that bad of a definition, at least for debates as of the EvC type. It distinguishes our level of certainty and the type of evidence we have that causes us to come to a particular conclusion.

I'd ask that the end be "observed directly" or some such. Plenty of macroevolution under any definition has been observed, just not in real time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by herebedragons, posted 07-17-2014 12:45 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 92 of 207 (733479)
07-17-2014 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
07-17-2014 12:44 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Berkeley also has a distinct section for microevolution as well as a section on macroevolution. It is doubtful that creationists would find either of these pages useful to their cause, though.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2014 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 93 of 207 (733489)
07-17-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by JonF
07-17-2014 8:17 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Gorsh, I feel snubbed. And there are others.

If it helps a bit, I freely acknowledge that you know more about the subject than I do. It's not hard to find posts where you've corrected me.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by JonF, posted 07-17-2014 8:17 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 8:00 AM NoNukes has seen this message

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 207 (733491)
07-17-2014 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by herebedragons
07-17-2014 12:45 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
It distinguishes our level of certainty and the type of evidence we have that causes us to come to a particular conclusion.

If we are rigid about that distinction, we won't be able to have discussions with creationists. Creationist insist that micro-evolution is evolution from wolves to dogs, however slow, and does occur, while macro-evolution is evolution of say a land animal-kind to a whaley-kind, and cannot occur cause you did not see it.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by herebedragons, posted 07-17-2014 12:45 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 3:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 95 of 207 (733492)
07-17-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
07-17-2014 3:45 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
NoNukes writes:

Creationist insist that micro-evolution is evolution from wolves to dogs, however slow, and does occur, while macro-evolution is evolution of say a land animal-kind to a whaley-kind, and cannot occur cause you did not see it.


Nobody saw the wolves to dogs evolution either, so they're shooting themsleves in the foot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 3:45 PM NoNukes has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 96 of 207 (733497)
07-17-2014 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:21 AM


how do you measure truth and accuracy?
As for my experience, I have not met many true scientists. ...

And how do you measure whether a person is a "true scientist" or not? How do you determine what is 'true' and what is fantasy? What I use to measure if a scientist is a real scientist is whether or not they actually do real science, apply the scientific method, and test predictions made by theories and publish articles in peer reviewed journals. What is your paradigm? How do you test whether information is based on fact or fantasy?

... Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment. ...

Can you define what you understand 'macro' evolution to be?

In biology 'macro' means speciation (the division of a breeding population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations), and the subsequent formation of nested hierarchies by multiple occurrences of such population branching events. Speciation has been observed and thus it is a known fact, and while nested hierarchies are also observed they are a prediction of evolution: every instance tests the theory and the results validate the theory.

If this is NOT what you think 'macro' means then obviously there is a communication problem; and when it comes to a problem of definition, you should use the definition used in science if you are talking about the science, otherwise you are just confusing yourself and you haven't really engaged in the discussion.

see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and feel free to post any questions you have on that thread (it is off topic on this thread). Also see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. on the importance of using scientific terminology as it is used in the science when discussing the science.

Is there any reason to think that 'macro' is anything other than observing 'micro' occurring over many generations? I can take a step, and that is a 'micro' hike (and I can discuss and observe all the different mechanisms that go into taking that one step), and I can walk across the continent (and I can discuss the accumulated effect of taking many single steps, one after the other, and how those steps can vary in different environments) but in no case do any of the steps taken walking across the continent use a different set of mechanisms than are used in taking a single step. The process of taking a single step is sufficient to explain the ability to walk across the continent.

... I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed, ...

... by scientists. Curiously no creationist has debunked any frauds, rather they have been involved in perpetuating them (as any discussion of them at this time does). see Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes ... (and discuss this further on that site if you wish).

... to make sure they were no longer part of the debate and I get met with the above

So let me get this straight: you mention known (and scientifically debunked) falsehoods in a discussion, to ensure that they don't become part of the discussion? How has that worked out for you?

Wouldn't you really like to discuss what is actual science instead?

... Ask someone if they believe in the possibility of unicorns or aliens and see what you get met with

Let me guess ... something along the lines of: show me the objective empirical evidence and we can discuss this further. Without evidence how do you segregate factually based concepts from fantasy ones?

Don't you agree that the confidence we can have in a concept being valid is related to the amount of objective empirical evidence that provides a basis for that concept?

What is the difference between a possibility, a probability and a known fact?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:21 AM mram10 has seen this message

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 97 of 207 (733502)
07-17-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:31 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
1. I have been reading about helium dating of rocks from 0-12000 ft in new mexico done by the RATE team. The article mentioned the uranium alpha particles becoming helium levels were different than originally thought, thus making the age based on helium dating, younger. It was the first I had heard of this, so I am seeking more info.

Others have covered other aspects of this particular case. Needless to say, the RATE team did not demonstrate that the helium levels were consistent with a young date.

However, there is another comment I would like to make. Many creationists will criticize radiometric dating techniques because they rely on an assumption that the daughter product can not move in or out of the rock. Of course, this assumption has been tested inside and out for the main dating methods that geologists use. What is curious is that when the creationists try to devise a methodology, they picked a daughter product that does move in and out of the rock, and does so in a temperature dependent manner.

So why would creationists pick a dating methodology that has the very problems that they falsely accuse other methodologies of having? Seems a bit two-faced to me.

2. I also have questions about the assumptions you listed (rate been a constant, etc). Again, I read a study by the same RATE team, that I need to link, stating ideas to the contrary.

The constancy of decay rates is a fact, not an assumption. In order to change decay rates you would need to change the funadmental laws of physics to do so. Such changes would easily be seen in distant stars, be it spectra or the brightness/longevity of type Ia supernovae.

While I am tempted to really tell you what I think of the RATE team, I won't. I often complain that creationists refuse to get in the lab and test their ideas. The RATE team actually did that. They botched their research on purpose, but at least they tried to do some science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:31 AM mram10 has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 8:15 AM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 98 of 207 (733505)
07-17-2014 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:21 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
As for my experience, I have not met many true scientists. Fact Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment. I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed, to make sure they were no longer part of the debate and I get met with the above

You have to understand that you get the "you must be a ....." because you are repeating the hogwash that creationist organizations peddle to christian groups. It is also quite apparent that you get your information solely from non-scientific creationist sites.

So the real question is why you think a few creationist sites gives you teh information you need to tell hundreds of thousands of highly trained and highly experienced scientists that they are all wrong? Surely you understand just how silly you must look, right?

{Things biological evolution is definitely off-topic - Adminnemoosseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and note.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:21 AM mram10 has seen this message

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 99 of 207 (733506)
07-17-2014 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ringo
07-17-2014 12:36 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
How about: Nobody but a creationist thinks there's a fundamental difference between micro and macro.

I don't know about fundamental, but there is a crucial difference between the two. Macroevolution needs a mechanism not found in microevolution, and that mechanism is speciation. In order to get multiple and diverse species you need populations to be isolated from one another, and then accumulate different mutations over time.

{Things biological evolution are definitely off-topic. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and note.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 07-17-2014 12:36 PM ringo has seen this message

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3959
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 100 of 207 (733509)
07-17-2014 7:14 PM


Not a biological evolution topic
I've off-topic bannered the last two messages, but there are more off-topic before that.

The topic is "Validity of Radiometric Dating".

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that©.

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 2742 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 101 of 207 (733516)
07-17-2014 8:44 PM


EvC forum???? Hmmm... I was expecting real scientists that are comfortable hearing there might be new information we can learn from. For those that are not interested in testing and studying different findings, then feel free to ignore my posts. You are wasting both of our times.

Back on topic. Old earth, young earth, don't care. I enjoy hearing about new findings in the radiometric dating world. To discount the RATE findings just shows the ignorance of those that don't read their findings. Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Coyote, posted 07-17-2014 9:43 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 9:53 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2014 9:57 PM mram10 has seen this message
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2014 10:04 PM mram10 has replied
 Message 115 by JonF, posted 07-18-2014 8:17 AM mram10 has seen this message

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1346 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 102 of 207 (733523)
07-17-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mram10
07-17-2014 8:44 PM


Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.

The main finding made by the RATE boys is that scientists were right about radiometric dating.

They refused to believe it, of course.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 8:44 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 103 of 207 (733527)
07-17-2014 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mram10
07-17-2014 8:44 PM


I enjoy hearing about new findings in the radiometric dating world. To discount the RATE findings just shows the ignorance of those that don't read their findings.

We have read them and we have discussed them here at length. This stuff is not new.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 8:44 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 104 of 207 (733528)
07-17-2014 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mram10
07-17-2014 8:44 PM


EvC forum???? Hmmm... I was expecting real scientists that are comfortable hearing there might be new information we can learn from. For those that are not interested in testing and studying different findings, then feel free to ignore my posts. You are wasting both of our times.

Back on topic. Old earth, young earth, don't care. I enjoy hearing about new findings in the radiometric dating world. To discount the RATE findings just shows the ignorance of those that don't read their findings. Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.

Sure, let's see what they have to say:

A large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today’s rates — of nuclear decay occurred.

ETA: reference: Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay",Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

Similarly the RATE report itself admits to "more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay". (Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. 2 p. 284, Institute for Creation Research, 2005.)

It is YECs who need to discount and ignore these findings. I'm very comfortable with them.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 8:44 PM mram10 has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-17-2014 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 207 (733529)
07-17-2014 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mram10
07-17-2014 8:44 PM


... Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.

Tell you what, why don't you post their findings from their last report that show any evidence of a young earth?

Simple task, should be easy to do ... right?

EvC forum???? Hmmm...

The forum discusses lots of topics from science to fantasy to politics, but the purpose of different threads is to focus on specific topics rather than wander around willy nilly.

Back on topic. Old earth, young earth, don't care. I enjoy hearing about new findings in the radiometric dating world. To discount the RATE findings just shows the ignorance of those that don't read their findings. ...

Methinks you protest too much: if you don't care then why keep harping on the RATE project?

Why don't we start with the evidence for an old earth (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) and then come back to whether or not the RATE report is worth the paper it was written on ... in other words, lets look at independent confirmation of the age of the earth based on simple evidence with no biased opinions ... yes?

Or we can discuss how the age of the earth is verified by a simple observation on Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 8:44 PM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022