Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,169 Year: 5,426/9,624 Month: 451/323 Week: 91/204 Day: 7/26 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 12 of 144 (587373)
10-18-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 3:30 PM


Belief vs. evidence
Well this is what I still don't understand. How can they go around spouting supposed inconsistencies in things like geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology and so on, and yet not provide a shred of evidence to back up their position?
It is hard for folks trained in science to grasp this, but religious belief trumps scientific evidence in their minds.
They know the answers already, and if science comes up with answers to the contrary science is just wrong. They don't really care why science is wrong--that's a problem for scientists to figure out.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 3:30 PM Zubbbra25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-19-2010 6:13 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 144 (589907)
11-04-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
11-04-2010 10:45 PM


A single example...
You need to remember that all it takes is one single example of something that is older than your young earth age to falsify your position?
Exactly. I have obtained radiocarbon dates in excess of 12,000 years. There goes the idea that the earth is only about 6,000 years old.
And my colleagues in other areas have obtained radiocarbon dates far older.
And other -ologists in other areas have radiometric dates of all ages on different things, including maximum ages of the earth going back some 4.5 billion years.
Whoops! There goes the idea of a young earth.
And these dates are supported by scientific methods and real world evidence; they are not something just pulled out of thin air as creationists' dates generally are.
Don't like it? Come up with dates based on valid scientific methods and real world evidence that support your beliefs. But better be careful when attempting science--look what happened to the RATE Project boys when they investigated nuclear decay!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 11-04-2010 10:45 PM jar has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 144 (590207)
11-06-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:07 PM


Dating the global flood
Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model. But to do this, we just have to discuss each piece at a time.
Are you willing to specify a date for the global flood?
Something discrete? Something that does not float in time between about 3,000 years ago and the Cambrian and beyond?
Then we can discuss dating that event, and the methods creationists might use.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:07 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 67 of 144 (590222)
11-06-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
11-06-2010 9:08 PM


The Creationist Literature & Dating techniques
I'm still waiting for details on creationists' dating techniques.
Jumping to the middle of the book, I just love the way creationist websites publish articles by "experts" who calibrate their radiocarbon dates with reference to the global flood. To make everything come out the way they believe, they pull the hat out of the rabbit and fudge their calibrations based on some imagined property of the flood. And it's not always the same property!
Unfortunately for the "experts" these properties, and the flood itself, are all imaginary.
Any creationists want to jump in here? Or do we know the creationist literature better than you folks do?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 9:08 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 87 of 144 (591271)
11-12-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
So perhaps my answer to your question would be yes, ID creationists would need a different dating methodology. I'm not sure whether there is enough known or enough to be assumed about the pre-flood earth and atmosphere to implement such a methology.
This should not be a problem, because the evidence shows there was no global flood as described in the bible.
What you are doing is equivalent of claiming to get 500 mpg in your car because of the sssckdkdz factor. The sssckdkdz factor, of course, doesn't exist. And, just as we can determine the actual fuel mileage in your car and thus disprove the sssckdkdz factor, we can determine whether there was a global flood or not in historic times. This is not rocket science. Even my own archaeological research is sufficient to show that the flood never happened as described. It's so easy almost anyone can do it!
If creationists want to base a dating method on the flood and it's effects, or on the sssckdkdz factor, they will have to present evidence that either of these things exists first. In the case of the flood this will be difficult, as the early creationist geologists, seeking to document the flood, gave up just about 200 years ago.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:00 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 95 of 144 (591287)
11-12-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:00 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Coyote, how many times do I need to say it? The question asked in the OP does not necessarily call for a resolution to the flood/no flood debate. The question is whether such a premise would call for an alternative dating methods.
Sorry, but I am not much into fiction when it comes to my field of study. Hypotheticals are nice for grad school BS sessions, but I am no longer much interested in hypotheticals which have no sound basis in fact or evidence and which lead nowhere.
There are numerous Biblical creationist ID hypotheses as to interpretation of the Genesis record relative to literatness. The Buzsaw Hypothesis is uniquely literate, not necessarily assuming YEC and assuming an eternal unverse, etc.
I am gratified that you are literate, as that puts you ahead of 90% of folks on the web and makes what you write that much easier to decipher. Now you need to work on being rational, because what you are promulgating is not supported by real world evidence. It is in fact diametrically opposed by the evidence of the real world.
The problem with elitist YECs is that the Docs of Divinity have been educated over the conventional theology institutional assembly lines of conventional wisdom and knowledge, both Biblical and secular. Instead of thinking and applying logic for themselves, they, like their secularist counterparts get their young minds filled full of mush all the way from kindergarten to doctorate.
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice
Sorry for the interlude, but sometimes Heinlein has the perfect description. (His book, JOB is rather interesting by the way.)
I have the solution to the "mush" problem. When something is unclear, compare it to the evidence. This tends to clear up a lot of problems. For example, the evidence shows the global flood didn't happen as described. The same evidence thus also clears up the vapor canopy problem and the need to calibrate radiometric dates to account for that vapor canopy.
And I can check the evidence for myself with regard to the global flood: I have examined many archaeological sites which span the ca. 4,350 year date ascribed to the global flood without having found any evidence of that flood. I have instead found continuity in pretty much everything, including fauna and flora, human cultures, stratigraphy, and most telling of all, mitochondrial DNA in the resident populations.
Now you may consider this a "secularist" approach, but it is consistent with an awful lot of real world evidence. Your approach, on the other hand, is contradicted by a huge amount of real world data and supported by essentially none of that data. You have to rely on scripture, revelation, and belief--all of which is a "he said" proposition--for your support.
You could actually go out in your backyard and perform this same kind of test: soil layers can be deciphered and dated. You could look for layers about 4,350 years old and see if you can find evidence of a global flood. If it is global it has to be pretty much everywhere, including your back yard. (One potential problem is a lot of modern development removes the topsoil, so you may have to move to a better location nearby.) This kind of exploration is much easier in an archaeological site as we have a lot more time stratigraphic markers to help us out, but it can be done with soils with just a bit more work.
Are you game to look at real world evidence, or will you, in the words of another Heinlein quote, let belief get in the way of learning?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 144 (591295)
11-12-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Coyote writes:
Are you game to look at real world evidence, or will you, in the words of another Heinlein quote, let belief get in the way of learning?
How much of your cited data assumes a relative uniform non-disaster model? The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?
Address the data or don't. But don't attempt to simply hand-wave it away. What-ifs are not evidence.
There is no real world evidence for a "pre-flood vapor canopy" so you can't use that in a logical argument. You might just as well cite the Easter Bunny as evidence.
You are trying to support a religious belief that has an immense body of evidence that contradicts it, so you come up with various "what-ifs" as if that means anything. It doesn't, and I'm not going to play that game. Alice has the day off and the rabbit hole is closed for repairs.
Either address the evidence or admit you don't any evidence supporting your position, but don't try to feed us unsupported "what-ifs" and think that substitutes for real world evidence. It doesn't.
Now, care to try to address my points again? Care to address the real world evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 144 (591303)
11-12-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 11:09 PM


Re: Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
What's wrong about referral of a disaster flood model premise relative to my points? How is that a less valid model than referring to a relative uniform model?
The ID creationist must assume the ID creationist non-conventional hypothesis for the purpose of answering the OP question pertaing to this thread. No?
I answered this above. There is no real world evidence supporting the "flood model" and I see no reason to debate it as if there were. It is a myth start to finish.
We might just as well debate Tolkein's use or non-use of allegory or the deeper meaning of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy. There is about as much evidence for those being real as there is for this "flood model."
You can't hide from the real world evidence forever.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 144 (607086)
03-01-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by goldrush
03-01-2011 9:47 PM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
Actually the Bible puts no specific or approximate age on the earth.
So you accept the age of the earth established by scientists then?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by goldrush, posted 03-01-2011 9:47 PM goldrush 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