Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
 5 online now: Newest Member: Jorge Parker Post Volume: Total: 918,177 Year: 5,434/9,624 Month: 459/323 Week: 99/204 Day: 15/26 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Dates and Dating

# Assumptions involved in scientific dating

Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 (2)
 Message 65 of 222 (827243) 01-21-2018 11:28 AM Reply to: Message 61 by DOCJ01-21-2018 3:46 AM

Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
What is the formula used to determine the age of materials? And what are the constant variables?
It would be a good idea to check out the reference Coyote provides first: Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating.
While the general concepts are simple, the specifics of the calculation have some details that require some explanation. I'll just quote from the Wikipedia article on Radiocarbon Datin:
quote:
The results from AMS testing are in the form of ratios of 12C, 13C, and 14C, which are used to calculate Fm, the "fraction modern". This is defined as the ratio between the 14C/12C ratio in the sample and the 14C/12C ratio in modern carbon, which is in turn defined as the 14C/12C ratio that would have been measured in 1950 had there been no fossil fuel effect.
Both beta counting and AMS results have to be corrected for fractionation. This is necessary because different materials of the same age, which because of fractionation have naturally different 14C/12C ratios, will appear to be of different ages because the 14C/12C ratio is taken as the indicator of age. To avoid this, all radiocarbon measurements are converted to the measurement that would have been seen had the sample been made of wood, which has a known δ13C value of −25.
Once the corrected 14C/12C ratio is known, a "radiocarbon age" is calculated using:
Age = -8033 · ln(Fm)
The calculation uses Libby's half-life of 5,568 years, not the more accurate modern value of 5,730 years. Libby’s value for the half-life is used to maintain consistency with early radiocarbon testing results; calibration curves include a correction for this, so the accuracy of final reported calendar ages is assured.
AbE: This seems to duplicate RAZD's information in Message 63. I actually typed up this message a few hours ago but didn't have a chance to proof it before I left, so when I returned I just proofed it and posted it, and only then did I notice RAZD's post.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 3:46 AM DOCJ has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 66 by DOCJ, posted 01-21-2018 8:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 96 of 222 (827363) 01-23-2018 9:56 AM Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ01-22-2018 10:29 PM

Re: Questions
Hi DOCJ,
Wow! This is a lot to unpack.
I'm merely interested in the truth about dating methods.
Judging from what you've posted, the actual truth is that you're interested in the "electric universe" and how it disproves dating methods.
The age debate wouldn't refute my faith because it is adaptable.
If your faith is truly adaptable and would change in light of what you learn in this debate, then that makes your faith much like science, changing whenever new evidence or understandings come to light. Pardon me if I don't believe your faith is like that.
I generally view conventional science as an outdated way of thinking.
Why don't you be honest and say you don't accept established methods of gaining scientific knowledge while offering no substitute methods.
I don't think any of the views are accurate in describing the universe.
Much of what we know about the universe is because we can see it. Maybe these scientific instruments are familiar to you:
I'm just interested in the truth.
We can tell you what is true about what science currently knows, but we can't give you truth. Science is tentative, always aware that it's knowledge is an incomplete understanding of the true nature of the universe. When science is good then it approaches that truth ever closer, but it never achieves it.
But are you really interested in accurately understanding scientific views? You seem to have begun promoting opinions not gained by scientific methods.
In interpreting your response, it does seem as if you do not care about the accuracy of dating. It's as if you are fine with whatever.
You quote nothing from Edge's Message 67 that you replied to, so there's no way to know what he said that lent you this impression, but in reading Edge's message I picked up the opposite impression.
Which is fine but I'm more interested with the truth. And if you represent the main way of thinking I can definitely see why there is a debate. Christians who are in seek mode are looking to conclude in truth not on bias with regards to dating. If your attitude is a standard within the geology field, it's not a good thing. Every detail should matter, anchoring is unhealthy.
Again, you quote nothing from Edge's message. What did he say that this is a response to? In particular, what attitude are you saying is "not a good thing"?
For the record, Edge expressed no bias with regard to radiometric dating
FYI: I believe in the electrical model of the universe,...
Which doesn't match observations.
...birkeland currents,...
Everyone accepts Birkeland currents. Note that the "b" is capitalized.
...plasma physics,...
Everyone accepts plasma physics.
...and accept gravitational physics as a weak force.
Gravitation is a very weak force compared to electromagnetic forces.
Essentially the Birkeland current would develop a universe that changes the composition of material, and the like due to the electrical current that would connect everything in the universe.
Birkeland currents are a local phenomenon that flow between the Earth's magnetosphere and ionosphere. The electric universe notion inappropriately generalizes Birkeland currents to the entire universe.
There is absolutely no way to determine the beginning or the age of the universe with conventional methods.
This is most certainly wrong. The evidence for an age of the universe of about 13.5 billion years has been established scientifically via two different methods.
The first link is to a 55 minute video, the second to a 20 minute video, and the third to a 25 minute video. The Forum Guidelines encourage you to express your views in your own words and only use links to websites, papers and videos as supporting references.
What makes you think anything concerning electric or plasma flows can have any effect upon radiometric decay rates?
Moving on to your Message 78:
DOCJ in Message 78 writes:
I think the wording you prefer doesn't change the issue. There is plenty of evidence electric currents flow in the cosmos, and electric discharge will effect radioactive clocks.
Again, you should argue your views in your own words. What makes you think electric or plasma flows can affect radiometric decay rates?
Moving on to your Message 83:
DOCJ in Message 83 writes:
You don't know that.
Pressie doesn't know what? You've quoted nothing from Pressie, so how are we to know what you're claiming Pressie doesn't know?
Inflation has no facts.
Inflation is a theoretical model that *explains* facts, not *has* facts.
Redshift and the wmap is circumstantial reasoning.
WMAP, like most acronyms, is capitalized. This is an odd statement to make. Why do you think the observed increase in redshift with increasing distance along with the observations of the cosmic background radiation of the WMAP represent "circumstantial reasoning"?
Inflation
WMAP
Moving on to your Message 90:
DOCJ in Message 90 writes:
My goal of providing a alternative valid narrative is providing truth AND in which not a single contrary valid argument FROM you regarding the points in the links has been posted.
And again, we try to dissuade people from debating via link. According to the Forum Guidelines you haven't made any points yet, just provided links.
Making the assertion that I'm not looking for truth is irrelevant as the main narrative here is to provide reasonable doubt in conventional dating methods.
So start providing your evidence and analysis that will cast "reasonable doubt in conventional dating methods."
Since this has been provided in the links...
It's only been provided in the links and not in any text written by yourself. To be more explicit, this is the guideline you're violating from the Forum Guidelines:
1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
... feel free to debate but you will inevitably not refute the points because they are mere evidence.
We can make that judgment once you've presented your evidence.
The reasonable doubt and scientific evidence falsifying bb, inflation, decay, etc which ARE not even theoretical has been provided.
Once again, this debate is not your opportunity to pass out reading and viewing assignments. According to the rules of this board, so far you've provided nothing.
Moving on to your Message 91:
DOCJ in Message 91 writes:
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude truth. This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion unless you find idealism optional.
There is no truth of the kind you're seeking, a kind of absolutist truth that endures for all time. That is not science. The nature of science is to be tentative and always ready to change in light of new evidence or improved understanding.
Moving on to your Message 92:
DOCJ in Message 92 writes:
I don't need to defer to creationist points rooted in theology as you claim. The dispute is within the scientific community...
There is a very broad consensus within the scientific community about the Big Bang, the cosmological background radiation, and the age of the universe.
...as I have provided a few links proving it is within the scientific community.
Again with the links. There is almost no acceptance of the electric universe within the scientific community, certainly not enough for a dispute to arise, so I doubt very much that your Thunderbolts Project links and such show a dispute.
Honestly, it just is validating creationist thought.
I agree that conceding the connection between the electric universe and creationism is honest.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ, posted 01-22-2018 10:29 PM DOCJ has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 (1)
 Message 101 of 222 (827370) 01-23-2018 11:06 AM Reply to: Message 98 by DOCJ01-23-2018 10:39 AM

Re: Questions
Jar writes:
Your argument is not scientific... It is emotional old man. ROFL.
Jar wasn't making an argument. He was pointing out that you have yet to enter any evidence or arguments into the discussion, just links.
There's are good reasons this website encourages participants to make their arguments in their own words. First, links to websites, webpages and videos give no indication of the intended key points or information. Second, by describing the evidence and arguments in their own words people demonstrate (or not) that they have a mastery of material.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 98 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:39 AM DOCJ has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 106 of 222 (827377) 01-23-2018 11:34 AM Reply to: Message 99 by DOCJ01-23-2018 10:47 AM

Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
I disagree. Truth is the shedding of light, and I don't specifically mean in a theological sense.
I think I disagree with both you and Stile. If we're talking science (and I hope we are, since this is a science thread), then science doesn't deal in truth, not in a theological sense or any other sense, not unless you define truth as in some way tentative. Typically truth is regarded as more sturdy and timeless than something tentative.
If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias.
There's a grammar problem somewhere in that poorly structured and contradictory sentence, but you seem to be saying that A and B are biased, and they're debating C (who in addition to debating A and B "is just spectating") and detects the bias.
I'm merely attempting to point out that bias.
Can I guess that you're designating yourself the objective bias detector?
I've said my point of view.
No you haven't. You've said so little about your point of view that the term "electric universe" doesn't even appear in any of your messages, though you do use the phrase "electric model of the universe" in Message 75. The closest you've come to describing your views is your brief FYI that was also in Message 75. Mostly all you've done is provided links.
Which some have provided, despite that you've only provided links
And soon I'll respond to Percy who has made a mess of things.
I'm sure he is purposefully deceitful since it's clear he is conventional in his views, and would like to hate apparently...
I've known Percy for a long time, and I think you're mostly correct. He is a bit conventional in that he demands evidence and follows the rules. He also is a bit of a hater of eschewing evidence and flouting the rules.
...vs being unbiased and debating as I have done.
If you do say so yourself.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

 This message is a reply to: Message 99 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:47 AM DOCJ has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 109 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 11:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied Message 124 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 108 of 222 (827379) 01-23-2018 11:41 AM Reply to: Message 100 by DOCJ01-23-2018 10:52 AM

Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific.
I hope that's just a typo and that you meant "qualify".
Be more specific as to how per each point they make.
Once again, we don't debate via link here. If you have points to make then you'll have to make them yourself.
FYI looking at the link. Anything you want me to look at?
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 100 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:52 AM DOCJ has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 122 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:15 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 129 of 222 (827402) 01-23-2018 2:54 PM Reply to: Message 122 by DOCJ01-23-2018 1:15 PM

Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
I meant quantify as is posted.
You mean you meant to say, "Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific"? Really? Just how does someone saying something isn't scientific quantify anything?
You should describe your evidence and analysis here in the thread. Links are just for reference, not for doing your work for you. So far you've given no indication of familiarity with any supporting evidence that might exist for the electric universe and how it would affect radiometric decay rates.
Still waiting on the response.
Until you provide some evidence and argument, there's nothing to respond to.
It does seem like all of you haven't researched the source.
Some will look at your links, some won't, but it's your responsibility to describe your evidence and analysis in your messages, for the two reasons I gave before.
I'll respond to your other post soon.
I can hardly wait.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 122 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:15 PM DOCJ has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 131 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:44 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 (1)
 Message 146 of 222 (827431) 01-24-2018 8:34 AM Reply to: Message 131 by DOCJ01-23-2018 3:44 PM

Re: Questions
I'm guessing you need coffee,...
In other words, you have no answers to the criticisms.
...then go research the source.
You're expected to describe the evidence and rationale for your position in your own words, something you have yet to do.
Moving on to your Message 130 to Taq:
DOCJ in Message 130 writes:
It's not difficult to understand or post that dating methods are being disputed in the science community. It is equally a simple matter to reference. Links have been provided.
You need to describe the radiometric dating methods that are in question, why they're in question, and provide links to peer reviewed literature supporting your claims. The reality is that you've been taken in by videos and websites making claims that have no basis in reality.
Moving on to your Message 131 to me:
It was a metaphor...
What you said was, "Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific." There is no metaphor. You made a typo, or you misspoke, or you don't understand simple English.
Dating methods are being disputed in the science community. Links provided.
There is absolutely nothing else needed to be posted. I've mastered the claim. Lol..
This is obviously untrue since you haven't described any evidence, haven't provided any analysis, indeed haven't demonstrated an understanding of the position you're advocating that decay rates are affected by the electric universe.
Moving on to your Message 132 to Taq:
The Science community is ANYONE practicing Science. LOL.
Yes, that is funny, because the links you've provided are to charlatans pretending to practice science.
You don't get to control what is and what is not science.
We don't control what's science, but we can certainly call attention to those who claim they're doing science when they're not.
As long as they are making observations, formulating ideas based on observations, testing their ideas, making predictions, and presenting their conclusions before a group of peers to have others repeat their claim, or attempt to falsify their claim, it is the science community.
And who in the electric universe is doing these things? No one. Wikipedia says:
quote:
Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.
I know you would just LOVE it if you could pick and choose based on your feelings but that is not science.
Advocates of the electric universe demonstrate that their not doing science by the simple fact of not doing any science, meaning they're not engaged in any of the scientific activities you listed above. Instead of doing science they're creating websites and videos for a failed idea with little evidential support.
Moving on to your Message 135 to Taq:
Um I made a claim provided the data. Done.
You made a claim but provided no data. Not done.
Moving on to your Message 136 to Coyote:
Prove your claim and fyi the EU is not a group of religious zealots, they are evolutionists.
The claim that radiocarbon dating is not disputed except for Biblical literalists is supported by the fact that the vast majority of detractors are Biblical literalists. You EU guys seem to be non-religious fellow travelers particularly gullible regarding false claims. For instance, in your link to C14 dating someone says:
quote:
As I understand it, the rate of decay of an isotope is dependant on the ambient electromagnetic background - if this Background changes, the rate of decay will also change - the longer the timeframe involved the less accurate the dating technique will be.
This couldn't be more wrong. The only way electromagnetism affects radiometric decay is in its effect on any charged particles that emerge from decay. The Earth's magnetic field can have an effect on the rate of C-14 production because 14C is produced by cosmic rays striking 14N in the upper atmosphere, and the varying strength of the Earth's magnetic field varies the amount of cosmic rays striking 14N atoms. Solar flares can distort the Earth's the magnetic field and also affect 14C production.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add response to Message 124.
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

 This message is a reply to: Message 131 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:44 PM DOCJ has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 147 by jar, posted 01-24-2018 8:57 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 (2)
 Message 208 of 222 (827718) 01-30-2018 1:58 PM Reply to: Message 163 by DOCJ01-28-2018 12:09 AM

Re: Questions
Responding to some of your posts from the past few days...
Regarding your Message 163 to Taq:
DOCJ in Message 163 writes:
Taq writes:
You linked to a Thunderbolts page where they lied about the assumptions of the 14C dating method. They claimed that it is assumed that 14C production was the same in the past. This is a lie. The 14C dating method is calibrated to known historic fluctuations in 14C production as determined by objects of known age such as tree rings, lake varves, ice layers, and speleothems. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in that link.
You obviously didn't read much of the page.
I assume you guys are talking about this thread at the Thunderbolts Forum: C14 dating. It's a long page, and it's just the first page of a seven page thread consisting of 91 messages. How is anyone to know what part of it you're referring to? This is from the first post where he quotes from a patent application:
quote:
Nitrogen 14 is fed by pressure differentials in a continuous process in which atoms are held in fixed magnetic positions while electromagnetic energy converts protons into neutrons thus transmuting nitrogen 14 into carbon 14.
This is spectacularly impossible and entirely unpromising, there seems little point in reading on, though evidently Taq did, I don't know how far.
Rather than just posting a link (where it is rarely clear what information at the link you'd like people to read), if you have information you'd like to discuss then you should describe that information in your message, and you can provide links as references.
Regarding your Message 165 to Coyote:
DOCJ in Message 165 writes:
The EU/Thunderbolts project is a organization filled with PhD degrees in physicists and the like (Thornhill, Arp) that are evolutionists disputing dating methods.
Wal Thornhill is a Velikovsky/EU nut who produces videos and articles. Halton Arp is a cosmology nutcase who in the 1960's using inconclusive photos of distant galaxies decided they were the same distance away and drew absurd cosmological conclusions, then when better telescopes became available that showed the galaxies were at vastly different distances refused to give up his ideas, even after decades.
I could find no information about either of their views on evolution, and calling them evolutionists given their cosmological focus seems rather odd. They both pursue outlandish ideas, beyond the fringes of science into pseudoscience, and neither could be considered members of the scientific community.
And Creationist supporters like at Reasons to Believe with NASA astronomers like Hugh Ross support dating methods...
Hugh Ross is an old Earth creationist. I could not confirm that he was ever employed by NASA. He, too, is not a member of the scientific community.
Thus, Thornhill, Arp and Ross could debate all they like among themselves about dating methods, but it could by no means be considered a debate within science. It would be debate within the nuthouse.
You've obviously expended a lot of time and energy looking into the EU pseudoscience - why bother? There's real science being done out there, and while it won't feel as provocative, amazing, revelatory and antiestablishment, it does have the undeniably positive qualities of being based on real research, peer review, published scientific papers in respectable journals, and consensus building. No EU advocates are members of teams that are able to get time on telescopes - they have to draw the data that they misrepresent from the research performed by the legitimate scientific community.
Regarding your Message 171 to PaulK:
DOCJ in Message 171 writes:
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.
If you're going to issue accusations that someone is posting wrong information, then aren't you obligated, as a matter of not just honor but also in the service of truth, to explain why the information is wrong? Your reluctance to discuss the actual science of EU continues to be your most obvious quality.
Regarding your Message 172 to Coyote:
DOCJ in Message 172 writes:
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?
In the early days of radiometric dating of rocks the methods then available did require knowledge of the original concentrations of daughter elements, but this is no longer true and hasn't been true for a very long time, a half century at least. For radiocarbon dating, which only applies to organic material, the parent/daughter element issue isn't a problem.
DOCJ writes:
OR how can you just pretend to know nothing has changed within the find except natural decay, from the original state at creation?
There aren't many things that can be changed without leaving behind evidence of change. What kind of undetectable changes are you imagining that could alter dateable rocks in ways that still yielded consilient results across a variety of dating methods? For radiocarbon dating, what kind of undetectable changes are you imagining could alter the 14C content of organic material?
Regarding your Message 176 to PaulK:
DOCJ in Message 176 writes:
Dating methods are disputed within the scientific community:
No, they aren't. The people disputing dating methods are not "within the scientific community." They do like to claim that they are, and frequently they have scientific degrees, but when you look to their research you find that it is either non-existent or published in journals established by religious groups or that have no acceptance criteria or that are "pay to publish".
-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.
This is untrue, but since it is irrelevant to dating methods, the topic of this thread, I won't comment further.
-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 this paragraph refers to data that is relevant to radiometric dating then you're invited to present that data in this thread. If the paragraph doesn't refer to relevant data then it doesn't belong here.
-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.
No, they're pretty much crazy zealots. And it's "per se", not "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.
ICR "scientists" prove they're not "practicing true Science" every day. That they're not doing real science is why they have to invent their own conferences and journals. If you think ICR has produced scientific data that invalidates dating methods then you're invited to present it in this thread.
-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,...
I don't think Hugh Ross's ability to bamboozle millions (if indeed that is a valid number) of non-scientists budges the needle of science at all.
...that is supportive of current conventional dating methods.
As an Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross of course accepts far more of legitimate science than do Young Earth Creationists like ICR, so of course as an OEC Hugh Ross accepts radiometric dating. Hugh Ross' craziness lies in other realms, such as his rejection of plate tectonics and his belief that humans are biologically distinct from the rest of all life and are not descended from any extinct hominid species.
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.
ICR is Young Earth Creationism, Reasons to Believe is Old Earth Creationism. They're both creationist organizations. These non-scientific organizations can dispute each other's positions all they like, but that is not a dispute within legitimate scientific circles.
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.
It isn't individuals showing you're wrong but the actual evidence. We live in the real world, and real world data tells us certain things about that world, and it doesn't resemble the EU, nor does it cast any questions or doubt on radiometric dating, whose history of improvement and increasing validation will continue on into the future.
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.
Two crazy (when it comes to science) religious organizations disagree. So what.
-As I've been pointing out, the dating methods are being disputed by scientists,...
Name the scientists with a legitimate record of research in a relevant field who are disputing dating methods.
...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.
Reasons to Believe is a religious, not a scientific, organization. This is from their mission statement page (Our Mission & Beliefs):
quote:
RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific researchincluding the very latest discoveriesconsistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.
EU/Thunderbolts is a self-promoting pseudoscientific organization/website. I don't know why you'd call them "evolutionist". Sure, they accept evolution (not that they don't have some weird ideas - see for example Evolution and Earth’s Electric Field), but that's irrelevant to their primary mission of promoting the EU. It makes no sense that they should care about dating methods since even if the EU were true, it wouldn't affect decay rates.
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.
Disputes between ICR, RtB and the EU are not scientific disputes. These are all pseudoscientific organizations pursuing their own agendas having little to do with real science.
Regarding your Message 178 to PaulK:
DOCJ in Message 178 writes:
My main point is still not being addressed.
The one working hardest at not addressing your main point, presumably the Assumptions involved in scientific dating, is you. You post links instead of describing evidence and providing analysis.
You went off on several personal tangents.
If you love yourself that's fine...
A false accusation followed by a gratuitous and nonsensical insult. Way to go.
...but nothing you posted changed the strength of the main point.
Pointing out that these supposed "scientific disputes" about dating methods are actually between religious and pseudoscientific organizations strikes to the heart of your main point.
Fyi I was responding to posts and catching you up since you seemed to be out of the loop.
Whoa, another gratuitous insult. Stay on topic, dude. If PaulK is wrong and you have the evidence that he is wrong, then present that evidence. If on the other hand you got nothing then you should say nothing.
I suppose the only thing I can agree with you on is that I went off topic but I don't care a bit.
Others care a lot, and staying on topic is in the Forum Guidelines. That being said, topic diversions are expected and occur all the time, but members should try to maintain an intent to a return to the main topic as expeditiously as possible. Members should care a great deal about the length and degree of the topic diversion.
I did think it was a general discussion on dating methods when I posted WRT redshift assumptions...
What does red shift have to do with dating methods? PaulK made the same point. You've provided no answer.
...(which your point is silly because redshift pointing to distance is not proven).
Nothing in science is ever proven because of the tentative nature of all science, but all the evidence points to increasing red shift with increasing distance, and in fact the theory of relativity, which has been validated nine ways from Sunday, holds that an expanding universe is an inherent quality.
And atheists are also religious Zealots with ambition to push purely naturalist causes.
All your mentions of religious organizations, and now this, argues against your true interest being science.
Get over yourself.
Interesting, yet another gratuitous derogatory remark. Apparently you interpret disagreement with you as indicating some kind of personal flaw. I wonder, could you possibly turn your personal analysis machine around and let us know what it says about you?
Dating is being disputed between Christian's and Naturalist's.
Congratulations, you've finally said something almost true. Obviously you're trying to maintain the fiction that the dispute is within science, between Christian scientists on one side and Naturalist scientists on the other. But there is no such thing as non-natural science. The reality is that there *is* a dispute between evangelicals and science about dating methods (though much more about evolution), but it is a dispute, much quieter now than a decade ago, that takes place at school board meetings and in legislatures, not within the halls of science.
There is no absolutist way to prove that 1 of the organizations from ICR, EU or within the conventional scientist worldview is absolutely correct.
Of course this is true. Nothing within science is ever proven to be absolutely correct. The principle of tentativity demands that science always be prepared to change its views in light of new evidence and/or improved understanding. You've misconstrued what your arguing against, which isn't the claim that science is absolutely correct (a claim that no one in science would make) but is the claim that science has so much evidence for its views about dating methods in the form of data and in the way it binds tightly into the rest of the fabric of scientific knowledge that a strong consensus that it is likely true has formed.
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.
If you have evidence of these religious groups or the EU groups practicing science, this thread is your opportunity to present it.
I could make the claim about Naturalist's as well such as discussing funding/political pushing within Naturalist groups.
Your trying to argue through labeling. The proper terminology is scientists and science, not Naturalists and Naturalist groups. If you want evidence that scientists are truly practicing science then we'll have no trouble providing you references to technical papers published in highly respected scientific journals.
Such as the BS with climate change.
Oh, you're a climate change denier, too. Well, at least you're consistent.
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.
In this you have failed miserably.
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 journey, hence why the issue is in the Scientific community.
No one is asking you to "fold". We're asking you to say things that are true and provide evidence for your positions.
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 ridiculous. It's a supernatural book.
No one said anything about the Bible, so this response that has all the appearances of a rebuttal of some claim about the Bible is out of place.
I'm merely discussing dating methods and Science.
No, you're not discussing dating methods and science. You're discussing ICR and RtB and EU/Thunderbolts and disputes and religion and the Bible and atheists and so on. We're more than ready to get into the technical details of dating methods, but they don't seem to interest you much.
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.
It's good that you realize that science "changes regularly," but do you understand why it changes? Is the principle of tentativity clear to you, that of necessity science *must* change to reflect the latest (and presumably best) data and understandings, else it would cease to be our best understanding of the real world as it really is?
Regarding your Message 187 to Pressie:
Then why are you bringing thor up?
He wasn't bringing Thor up. That was sarcasm carried out through a reference to a genealogy as fictitious as "Gen 1:1 to Abraham".
Regarding your Message 188 to Edge:
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).
Science *does* happen to have evidence for what it believes true about our universe. That evidence *does* exist in copious quantities, should you ever become interested in discussing it. RAZD, as if often the case, has been the most energetic in presenting evidence to you, but your responses to his evidence-laden posts have been very short and have addressed none of the specifics of what he presents.
Regarding your Message 189 to Coyote:
DOCJ in Message 189 writes:
I have edited my posts for clarification.
You shouldn't be changing old posts, and you especially shouldn't be changing old posts that people have already replied to. Sometimes changing an old post is a good idea, but in that case it is important to do two things: a) Indicate the region of change in some way. A common way to do this is to put the change at the end, preceding it with the AbE acronym that stands for "Added by Edit". Another common way to do this is to put the added text in a region with [AbE] at the beginning and [/AbE] at the end. You don't have to use these methods, you can invent one of your own, but you should under no circumstances make significant changes to existing sentences or paragraphs. And b) Include a note in a new message about having made the change, and include a link to the message you changed.
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.
Can you provide links to the messages you edited?
Regarding your Message 192 to Pressie:
DOCJ in Message 192 writes:
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.
Pressie made no claim to certainty or absolute knowledge. He merely noted your failure to provide rebuttal to those who happen to be familiar with the science behind dating methods. The rest of your post revolves around this misinterpretation of what Pressie was saying, so I won't further comment.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 163 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:09 AM DOCJ has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 210 by JonF, posted 01-30-2018 6:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 (2)
 Message 219 of 222 (827762) 01-31-2018 4:31 PM Reply to: Message 214 by DOCJ01-31-2018 12:08 PM

Re: his really stupid "Questions"
Dude, paragraphs! This isn't 4th grade. Sheesh!
DOCJ writes:
Geologist actually DO attempt to date the creation date of the Rock.
I agree that Pressie's response to you in Message 204 wasn't helpful, but his Message 152 gave a good (though brief) description of why amphibolites can yield a wide variety of dates, and I think he's finding the way you're ignoring his points frustrating.
I'll be honest with you. I disagree that I need to use words like formation vs creation in order to appease your sense of intelligence.
I think several people have already made this point, but I'll try making it again in my own way, maybe having multiple explanations of the same thing will help. Igneous or metamorphic rock has a date of creation that coincides with its date of formation. This means that when an igneous or metamorphic rock solidifies and begins the radiometric clock ticking, that represents both the date of formation and the date of creation.
But the situation is completely different for sedimentary rock, which are often the rock layers that interest us most. Sedimentary rock is made up of tiny particles or fragments of rock that came from somewhere else through the processes of erosion and weathering and through the transport mechanisms of wind, rain, and water flow in glaciers, runoff, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, seas and oceans. When a sedimentary layer consolidates into rock, that is the date of formation. But it is not the date of creation, not radiometrically, because the tiny particles of rock were created elsewhere a long time before. Layers of sedimentary rock often cannot be dated directly, because their date of formation is completely unrelated to the different radiometric clocks of all the different particles of which it is composed. Sedimentary rocks are often dated indirectly by dating nearby layers of igneous rock or volcanic rock or ash.
And you are not the first to defer to a "lack of" on my part in this thread.
Well, kind of hard to refrain from commenting when someone is both outspoken and ignorant on the same subject. We're only human.
What I find more interesting is how big of a response my posts are generating.
You should find it embarrassing rather than interesting. Typical discussion board behavior is that the greatest ignorance draws the most responses, probably because substantial error is easier to point out than subtle error.
If I was so lacking, you and the others wouldn't be having this discussion...
But we're not really having a discussion. You're posting links and making ignorant claims. People are trying to provide you correct scientific information and you either ignore it, dismiss it, or misunderstand it.
...(and there would be no need to be insulting, and really no reason to post so others can view your post as you do realize others can think for themselves).
This is somewhat garbled, but I think you're saying that there's no reason to be insulting in posts because people can form their own opinions of how knowledgeable or ignorant you are. I sort of agree, but on the other hand in addition to being both outspoken and ignorant, you're also working very hard at maintaining your ignorance. It would be fine if you were merely not accepting what people are telling you as long as you provided counterarguments that reflected an understanding of the arguments you're attempting to counter. But that is not the case. You haven't provided any evidence for your own position, you've demonstrated a fairly thorough ignorance of radiometric dating, you haven't engaged with the scientific information that's been provided, and you for some reason think you're getting quality scientific information from religious and pseudoscientific websites (you're not).
Providing you accurate scientific information isn't working because you're not engaging with it, and once that approach fails there really aren't any other effective approaches available, so people are resorting to just trying ways to somehow get your attention, such as by showing disdain for the ignorant things you say, sometimes by being insulting.
However, you guys seem to have more time to spend in these threads than I have available as well...
There's no hurry. Respond when you have time. Obviously you don't have time right now, as this monolith of a rambling paragraph clearly indicates.
...(this entire discussion is being viewed and discussed over my cell in my case. I rarely have time to jump on my computer).
I'm in awe that anyone could do so much typing on a cell phone, but maybe that explains why your posts are so short and why you quote so little. You should only be responding when you "have time to jump on [your] computer." The quality of your posts will likely go way up, especially since the larger screen (hopefully your computer is not some 13" laptop but is a real desktop with a large monitor) allows display of a lot of information simultaneously in multiple windows, and you can much more easily and quickly bounce around a thread checking the information people have posted to you on this thread.
I am currently looking into many evolutionist/creationist issues regarding age, dinosaur tissue discoveries, c14 in dinosaur tissue,...
Dude, if you come across a webpage telling you that low level concentrations of 14C in dinosaur tissue invalidates radiocarbon dating, delete the tab immediately.
...the disparity issue in evolution with respect to the diversity of life in the fossil record,...
This issue doesn't sound familiar. Is this from some creationist website?
...pre cambrian and cambrian explosions of life...
This is definitely from a creationist website. Delete the tab, move on.
...(and related assumptions which if you want to call them conclusions THEN they are based on a current theory which they do change. And mutations have never been shown to produce diversity outside of the species (exception to plants as is also permitted in Genesis)...
Oh, God, you're going religious on us again. You're going to have to decide whether you're doing science or religion. Your position is that the EU calls the validity of dating methods into question. The EU stuff claims to be science, not religion, but you keep introducing creationist nonsense. Make up your mind whether you're doing science or religion.
...is also theoretical in evolution with natural selection and millions of years),...
Everything in science is theoretical in the sense that it's tentative. Why are you talking about mutations and natural selection within evolution in a thread about dating methods?
...and rather it is a lot of information on both sides.
So far there's been no information coming from your side.
And if you are not thinking with a paradigm or a presupposition, it does seem that there are many issues on both sides that both sides are trying to explain or argue.
That's straight out of the creationist handbook.
The thinking that it must be resolved every time by natural processes and that just because it can that it did happen by natural processes doesn't mean it did or didn't.
Do you have any scientific evidence for unnatural processes?
I also think that it is a terrible practice to say, that just because a person has faith in God that that does mean his or her Scientific explanation is lacking such as finding c14 in dinosaur tissue.
You're going creationist again - you're putting your faith is some extremely fallacious information. The EU people may be doing pseudoscience, but at least in their own way they believe in science. They wouldn't endorse your excursions into creationist territory. And ICR does not endorse the EU, see The Plasma Universe, which cautions creationists against being tempted by new ideas just because they oppose some of the same things as creationism.
This if it did happen would turn naturalist claims upside down even if "containing a lot of iron" somehow was the way the tissue lasted especially if c14 didn't decay in a "65 million year old fossil".
What is your objection to science confining itself to the natural. Do you have evidence for anything that isn't part of the natural universe?
I also disagree that everything, most of the time that if the Science is done by a creationist that they are lying or just ignorant.
I think creationists are very sincere and truly believe what they say, but as a group they are very ignorant when it comes to science. Those creationists who actively participate in the construction of misleading narratives that they claim are scientific are difficult to characterize. I think that the leaders of creationist thought like Behe and Dembski and Gish and Morris and Snelling and Austin also truly believe what they say, and I don't think anyone can explain why, because it is certainly possible for people dedicated to science to escape the indoctrination of creationism, as Glenn Morton exemplifies (see The Transformation of a Young-Earth Creationist).
In this particular thread the dating methods are being disputed and it is assumed to be a closed system.
As I said in another message (to which you haven't yet replied, Message 208, nor the previous one, Message 146):
percy in Message 208 writes:
There aren't many things that can be changed without leaving behind evidence of change. What kind of undetectable changes are you imagining that could alter dateable rocks in ways that still yielded consilient results across a variety of dating methods? For radiocarbon dating, what kind of undetectable changes are you imagining could alter the 14C content of organic material?
I'm also looking at the open system ideas and the implications. I am currently looking at the question raised by RAZD, and related arguments on both sides of the tree rings, and the region they grew. I'll respond when I have time.
Honestly if you are going to be insulting don't respond.
I think discussion would be more productive if you began engaging with the evidence that's being presented, and began presenting some evidence of your own.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify comment about 14C in dinosaur tissue.

 This message is a reply to: Message 214 by DOCJ, posted 01-31-2018 12:08 PM DOCJ has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Newer Topic | Older Topic Jump to:Board Administration     The Public Record     Announcements     Proposed New Topics     Suggestions and Questions Science Forums     The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy     Big Bang and Cosmology     Dates and Dating     Education and Creation/Evolution     Biological Evolution     Geology and the Great Flood     Human Origins and Evolution     Intelligent Design     Is It Science?     Creation/Evolution Miscellany     Origin of Life Social and Religious Issues     Bible Study     Comparative Religions     Social Issues and Creation/Evolution     Faith and Belief     Theological Creationism and ID Side Orders     Coffee House     The Great Debate     Free For All     Post of the Month     Links and Information     Creation/Evolution In The News     The Book Nook     Columnist     In Memoriam     Practice Makes Perfect Archives     Topic Proposals Archive     Showcase Retired Forums     Short Subjects (No new topics or messages)     Welcome visitors