Assumptions involved in scientific dating

Since you imply that you care about the truth you won’t have any problem providing evidence that electrical currents affect the relevant decays and that there was sufficient current to significantly affect the age, will you ?So, go ahead. Enlighten us.

Only one link was provided at the time I started to reply and that did not address the issue.The second is just a forum discussion about C14 dating and fails to deal with the fact that C14 dates have been calibrated against a good many samples of known date. When it starts by citing just such a calibration. And doesn’t offer any real evidence either. Not that a forum discussion is a good source at all.And the third is a video, which I don’t bother with. But given that neither of the first two comes close to qualifying I doubt that I am missing anything. If the video has anything good I am sure you can point to a written source.

Let us consider your Link 2The first post cites a Science Daily report of a press release about a calibration of C14 dates covering the last 50,000 years. These calibrations take carbon dates of material of known age because C14 production - and therefore the levels in the atmosphere - can vary. By finding the actual ratios corresponding to known dates C14 is based on measurements rather than pure theoryHe then goes on with the idea that electrical phenomena might mess up carbon dating oblivious to the fact that the calibration he’s just referred to covers any factors that might generally mess up dates.Citing a patent application (which is an odd source and not one that should automatically be trusted - especially when the patent is not granted as seems to be the case here) he comes up with the idea that electromagnetic phenomena might produce more C14 in the atmosphere but without any attempt to quantify it. Which would be useless even if it would have an effect on C14 dating which it wouldn’t. Even if the production of C14 did vary due to this mechanism the calibration is done to take account of variations in C14 production.This is not science. It is ignorant speculation.

quote:

---

The dispute of dating methods is within Science not theology

---

Your links so far - especially the ignorant display in the Thunderbolts forum - do nothing to establish that.You’ve mentioned Answers in Genesis who dispute radiometric dates on theological grounds - and has failed to come up with solid scientific criticism. You,be provided no evidence that the EU community have any scientific objection and the other organisation you cited - Reasons to Believe is an Old Earth Creationist organisation.If there is a genuine scientific dispute then show us the science. Not a bunch of ignorant twits pontificating in an Internet forum.

quote:

---

Everything you just posted is wrong.

---

And yet you provide no evidence that a single word of it is wrong.Since it is well known that Reasons to Believe is an Old Earth Creationist organisation it is just a little odd that you would chose to cite them as an example of scientific dissent. And it doesn’t take much research to find examples of RtB supporting conventional dating.Here they talk about carbon dating.I’ve already dealt with some of the idiocy from the Thundebolts forum thread you posted - which is quite enough to discredit it as science.Any other points you wish to dispute ? If you want to look even stupider than you do already I’m quite happy to rub it in.

quote:

---

You have completely missed any of my points. Good job.

---

You claim to a scientific dispute regarding dating so far involves links which present no scientific work and claims that certain groups dispute it.I have addressed those points.

quote:

---

. 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. Prove redshift is nothing more than intrinsic. The idea that red shift has to do with distance is not proven therefor it has no evidence.

---

The redshift argument is irrelevant to the dating methods discussed. In fact it has no relevance to the age of the Earth - the major point of contention - at all.I will also note that the arguments against a general correlation of redshift with distance - which is what you are actually talking about - don’t seem to have been very successful.

quote:

---

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

---

Is that meant to be your excuse for linking to that inane thread in the Thunderbolts forum ? All it showed was that the forum is full of people who are hopelessly ignorant of the relevant science - and rejec5 it for reason# that don’t really make sense.

quote:

---

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 this just because they a Christian which is actually unfair to presume such a thing as they are scientists..

---

And yet the Christians at Reasons to Believe - an organisation you cited - back up the scientific view on the age of the Earth.You fail to mention that the ICR has theological requirements for membership - including a belief in a young Earth. To claim that they dispute methods that refute their theolgical doctrines is hardl6 sufficient to establish a dispute within science. (Indeed it is notable that those who do argue for a Young Earth virtually always start with a theological conviction that the Earth is young)

quote:

---

My 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

---

Hardly a point clearly made - or even relevant. As an organisation devoted to apologetics Reasons to Believe is hardly a better example of science than the ICR or Answers in Genesis. Perhaps if you want to show a real dispute in science you should show credible scientific organisations ? Are there any real scientific organisations that dispute the age of the Earth ?

quote:

---

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.

---

The existence of a theological disagreement between the ICR and RtB hardly demonstrates that either side are NOT zealots (both of them are populated by zealots who compromise their allegedly scientific work to support their religious or religiously inspired beliefs).So, the fact that scientists in the ICR And AiG dispute dating methods does not establish the existence of a scientific dispute. There is no need for me to prejudge their work at this stage - all I need to do is withhold judgement.

quote:

---

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.

---

Directly addressing your points is not going off on a personal tangent.If you feel I missed on perhaps you should actually repeat it.

quote:

---

And atheists are also religious Zealots with ambitions to push purly naturalist causes

---

How funny. You make exactly the sort of prejudiced prejudgment you complained about. And I rather think that pointing out that I don’t rely on such prejudgements was rather relevant.

quote:

---

Dating is being disputed between Christian's and Naturalists.. there is no absolutist way to prove that 1 of the organizations from ICR, EU or within the conventional scientist worldview is absolutely correct

---

Dating is being disputed between people with a theological commitment to a Young Earth and pretty much everyone else. That in itself is evidence that the dispute is not scientific. Especially when we consider that the Young Earthers are arguing for an age that really isn’t tenable. When we consider the actual age they propose the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming.You can see the thread here on correlations for some of the evidence.

quote:

---

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 naturalists as well, or maybe discuss funding rights/political push within naturalists groups.

---

The question, of course is whether their rejection of dating methods is scientifically sound. Since we have good reasons to suspect otherwise the onus is on you to show that it is. But apparently you’d rather link to an ignorant discussion on a forum than put up anything that even claims to be science.

quote:

---

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.

---

But you haven’t shown it at all.

quote:

---

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..

---

Do you see a reason to actuallyy educate yourself and understand what you are talking about ? I mean being ignorant and irrational obviously works on the Thunderbolts forum but it isn’t going to fly here. And being arrogant and dishonest hardly helps either.

quote:

---

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

---

And now you are being silly. If the Bible doesn’t claim that the Earth is young then Science showing otherwise hardly undermines it. But in that case why are you dragging the Bible into it ?Added to answer an edit:

quote:

---

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..

---

The idea that science - real science - would accept that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old is flat out absurd. Science doesn’t change that much, not about anything that firmly established.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.