Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 222 (827568)
01-28-2018 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Taq
01-23-2018 1:08 PM


Re: Questions
You obviously didn't read much of the page.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 1:08 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 01-30-2018 1:58 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 222 (827570)
01-28-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Coyote
01-28-2018 12:05 AM


Re: Questions
The EU/Thunderbolts project is a organization filled with PhD degrees in physicists and the like (Thornhill, Arp) that are evolutionists disputing dating methods. And Creationist supporters like at Reasons to Believe with NASA astronomers like Hugh Ross support dating methods... What are you talking about??
Edited by DOCJ, : Er
Edited by DOCJ, : Er
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:05 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:22 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 222 (827571)
01-28-2018 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by NoNukes
01-28-2018 12:10 AM


Re: Questions
He was not debunked. He was debated. And it depends on who you listen to as to whether or not he is supported. Probability is not assigned by popular support. You can't have inflation in a bb universe where quasars live next to each other. And there is good reason why the bb is not theoretical yet and why you need another hypothesis like inflation to explain it yet both are not theoretical.
Edited by DOCJ, : Err

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2018 12:10 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2018 10:14 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 222 (827573)
01-28-2018 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Coyote
01-28-2018 12:22 AM


Re: Questions
The dispute over dating methods is in the scientific cimmunity not the theological community. I have pointed out that the EU community is generally evolutionist supporters. Anyway, we're just going in a circle. Thank you for providing your opinion.
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:22 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:29 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 2:52 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 222 (827576)
01-28-2018 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by PaulK
01-28-2018 2:52 AM


Re: Questions
Everything you just posted is wrong. I'm not sure how you can post it. Oh well. It's fine, I'll finish here with thank you for sharing your conventional scientific view.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 2:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:32 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 222 (827577)
01-28-2018 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
01-28-2018 12:29 AM


Re: Questions
Ok, good job. I still don't know why you, or others, have not stopped the assumptions? I mean, how can you trust a date when you have not an idea how much of the parent or daughter chemicals were present in the find being dated at creation? OR how can you just pretend to know nothing has changed within the find except natural decay, from the original state at creation?
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁😁🤣🤣
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification after the conversation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 12:29 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 11:04 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 222 (827580)
01-28-2018 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by PaulK
01-28-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Questions
You have completely missed any of my points. Good job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:43 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 222 (827583)
01-28-2018 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by PaulK
01-28-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Questions
I will restate my point.
Dating methods are disputed within the scientific community:
-The videos from previous posts provide the conferences regarding red shift issues and these are easily pointed out here. Redshift is probably nothing more than intrinsic.
-The websites reference discussions within the EU regarding assumptions made by those in conventional sciences such as that the universe is purely gravitational and chemicals are diffused. You can research the argument within the EU model more if you Desire.
-If you look to other scientists within other organizations such as the physicists at ICR they have another dispute regarding decay, and regarding the original makeup of the material, etc. And they are not crazy Zealots persay.. I'll make the claim that people say don't believe ICR just because they are a Christian organization which is actually unfair to say such a thing as they are scientists trying to provide a alternative narrative.. Prove they are not practicing true Science.
-The point regarding Reasons to Believe was that in that situation you have a fairly good argument within a Creationist worldview, that is accepted by millions, that is supportive of current conventional dating methods. I posted that in argument of the point another made regarding dating methods only being disputed by creationists. I was pointing out that actually it's not a Creationist issue persay. Also I just want to point out that just because an individual has a disagreement on this point doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's just difference of opinion. I've looked into everything I've posted and RTB has a lot of support, the issue being ICR and those believing in a YEC worldview.
-As I've been pointing out, the dating methods are being disputed by scientists, just because you disagree with those scientists doesn't mean they are JUST zealots as is pointed out with Reasons to Believe (Ross is also not a Creationist by birth, came to know God in Science) and the EU. Reasons accepts dating methods being a Creationist organization and the EU/Thunderbolts organization rejects dating methods being a evolutionist organization.
Looking at it all, it's not difficult to conclude that there are different conclusions in science regarding dating methods. I realize ICR, RTB, The EU and conventional scientist are from different practices BUT they are all physicists... Scientists drawing dispute about their conclusions..
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : End
Edited by DOCJ, : End
Edited by DOCJ, : End
Edited by DOCJ, : End
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 4:40 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 222 (827589)
01-28-2018 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
01-28-2018 4:40 AM


Re: Questions
My main point is still not being addressed. You went off on several personal tangents. If you love yourself that's fine but nothing you posted changed the strength of the main point. Fyi I was responding to posts and catching you up since you seemed to be out of the loop. I suppose the only thing I can agree with you on is that I went off topic but I don't care abit. I did think it was a general discussion on dating methods when I posted WRT redshift assumptions (which your point is silly because redshift pointing to distance is not proven). And atheists are also religious Zealots with ambition to push purly naturalist causes. Get over yourself. Dating is being disputed between Christian's and Naturalist's.. there is no absolutist way to prove that 1 of the organizations from ICR, EU or within the conventional scientist worldview is absolutely correct. Go ahead say whatever you want, you can't prove any of your claims about those groups if you are claiming they are not practicing Science.. I could make the claim about Naturalist's as well such as discussing funding/political pushing within Naturalist groups.. Such as the BS with climate change. However, I will just claim science is not united over dating methods and SHOW it with all the scientists from different groups and the disputes as I have done.
I have not seen any reason to just fold and say ok I believe in conventional naturalistic cause for all things using dating methods as a way to begin that jouney.. hence why the issue is in the Scientific community..
Fyi my personal belief system does not require the Bible to be scientific as it was NEVER a scientific text. And when people try to undermine the authority of the Bible with Science they are being rediculous. It's a supernatural book..
I'm merely discussing dating methods and Science. If at some point I accept dating methods I may try to connect the dots but I may not since I do realize Science changes regularly..
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : Notes
Edited by DOCJ, : End
Edited by DOCJ, : End
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 4:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 5:45 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 222 (827637)
01-29-2018 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
01-28-2018 10:05 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
I don't have an issue of debate in that thread. The time from Gen 1:1 to Abraham is not absolutely established. The geneaologies are not absolutely known to be used to age the earth and neither are the days in creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2018 10:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 6:31 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 8:59 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 222 (827639)
01-29-2018 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Pressie
01-29-2018 6:31 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
Then why are you bringing thor up?
Edited by DOCJ, : Err

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 6:31 AM Pressie has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 222 (827640)
01-29-2018 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by edge
01-28-2018 11:30 AM


Re: Questions
I could say the same thing about naturalism. Anything to not only keep your precious view but also so you don't have to think about judgment (i.e. the emotional issue).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by edge, posted 01-28-2018 11:30 AM edge has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 222 (827642)
01-29-2018 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
01-28-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Questions
I have edited my posts for clarification. In some posts I erased a point in it but only because of clarification as I was not thinking just of radio carbon dating but all dating methods in my original responses.
FYI: If I have not responded to a point in any post, anyone can point it out as I have not read every post. I'll go back ASAP. I am at work 65+ hrs a week, and I have 40+ hrs of other obligations outside work so I will get to the posts asap.
Edited by DOCJ, : Fyi
Edited by DOCJ, : Fyi
Edited by DOCJ, : Fyi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 11:04 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 7:21 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 191 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 7:51 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2018 9:58 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 222 (827649)
01-29-2018 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Pressie
01-29-2018 7:51 AM


Re: Questions
I don't believe you can have certainty [absolute knowledge] to any belief whether it be because of a body of knowledge, a spec of evidence or a revelation. We are all just trying to figure things out.
The idea of refuting is working within a realm of thought or a body of knowledge... However thought or knowledge is not absolute no matter how good it is founded. In order to refute in a scientific sense it would have to take a backbone piece of evidence of a current theory to be shown false. Such as showing mutations don't occur in evolution, showing electricity is responsible for gravity in gravitational theory, become a God in a theological sense in order to hopefully actually show the ultimate being doesn't exist but it would only show it to yourself. It's easier in medical science because you can have a direct observation vs a indirect observation. For example observing a person dying right after you give them a med, or in math refuting 2 + 1 is 3, or refuting that you are asking about being refuted to see if I will provide a way to be refuted, or if I even believe in refutation.. I would wager both reasons are why you asked... But refuting that is a bit easier for you than me.. Somewhere in the midst of everything is truth. I have just been trying to point all of that above out with dating methods in general not just radiocarbon dating.
FYI: I did admit that my belief system as a whole is adaptable but right now I do lean toward the electrical universe model of the universe. This doesn't mean I think conventional Science is absolutely wrong either. I don't believe Science is some kind of way to knowledge that does provide absolute truth nor does it claim to be that either. The main stuff I accept in science to be more provable is medical science which doesn't need evolutionist mechanisms to function (even though evolutionist mechanisms are typically a presupposition in the thinking). Everything is an argument in reality and everything has a presupposition.
Edited by DOCJ, : Correction
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : No reason given.
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : Add
Edited by DOCJ, : End

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2018 7:51 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 01-29-2018 2:09 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 222 (827655)
01-29-2018 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
01-29-2018 8:59 AM


Re: Questions and still no answers
I read the entire thread. I didn't find any issues that I can undermine persay. However arguably radiocarbon dating MAY be correct but that doesn't mean all radiometric dating is correct. Further using tree rings may be incorrect due to multiplicity and carbon dating maybe incorrect due to the various points I've already pointed out, i.e., the assumptions, so in that case you don't have congruence.
Edited by DOCJ, : Er
Edited by DOCJ, : Er

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 8:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 10:50 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 197 by JonF, posted 01-29-2018 12:34 PM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2018 11:12 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 2:03 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024