Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
45 online now:
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,291 Year: 5,039/23,288 Month: 160/1,784 Week: 47/211 Day: 14/33 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4058
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 218 of 222 (827759)
01-31-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by DOCJ
01-31-2018 12:08 PM


Re: his really stupid "Questions"
Geologist actually DO attempt to date the creation date of the Rock.

No, that is absolutely false and quite ridiculous. Why would you think such a thing?

Instead, geologists try to date when that particular rock had last solidified from having been completely molten -- obviously, only igneous rock would qualify for that particular set of dating methods.

It would really help to consider the actual processes involved.

Similarly, since you seem to be interested in the presence of c14 where you think that it should not be, then you should consider all the ways in which C14 can be produced. Radiocarbon dating is based on just one method of C14 production and incorporation (ie, cosmic ray bombardment in the upper atmosphere after which C14 is incorporated into plants which are then eaten, etc) while it ignores sources of trace amounts of C14 (eg, bombardment from the decay of radioactive sources in the strata).

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.

Not when they are actually doing science. The problem is when they are doing "creation science".

If a creationist knowingly crafts a false claim, especially when it involves misrepresenting his sources and the actual science (eg, the living fresh water mollusc claim, inter-species comparison of proteins such as cytochrome c as in Brown's rattlesnake protein claim or of some fictional protein as in Gish's Bullfrog Affair, then he is indeed lying. If a creationist misrepresents his sources and the actual science because he simply does not understand it, then he is indeed ignorant -- far too many examples to pick from. And, the vast majority of the time, if a creationist simply repeats other creationists' claims without making any attempt to test or verify them, then he is either lying (if he already knows those claims to be false) or is ignorant or both.

Sadly, almost all the time creationists either are lying or are ignorant or are both lying and being ignorant. While there are very rare occasions where a creationist is actually doing science, compared with what all the other creationists are doing such occasions are so rare as to be virtually non-existent. Plus, there is a form of natural selection of creationist claims in which the creationist community favors and demands the sensational lies and deceptions while ignoring any actual science -- thus nobody hears about actual science being performed by creationists but we only hear of the lies.

That situation really has to change, but, since change can only come from within the creationist community, then it will never happen.

This if it did happen would turn naturalist claims upside down ...

I have encountered this creationist attitude many times before and I get the impression that you subscribe to it as well: you seem to believe that if we find that something is caused by natural processes when that eliminates God. I would think that an actual creationist (as opposed to what we keep hearing from YECs) would consider such an idea as being blasphemous. Could you please clarify that?


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020