Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 222 (790901)
09-07-2016 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kbertsche
09-07-2016 4:00 PM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
I asked them how they could look for oil in a YEC context, and they said that the absolute dates are not very relevant. All that they need are relative dates and a knowledge of the underground morphology in which oil is found.
Pretty much what I've been saying. It's insisted that specific old age dates are needed but that makes no sense. All the OE dates do is point to the relevant rock, and it's the relevant rock that points to the oil.
ABE: Not the morphology, though, right? That would have to be discovered some other way in any case./abe
But if they see a way to find oil as a YEC, why become OEC?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2016 4:00 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2016 6:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 16 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2016 8:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 222 (790906)
09-07-2016 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
09-07-2016 6:16 PM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
Relative dating is not the subject of the thread.
Have you any observations on the assumptions involved in scientific dating?
Sure: absolute or "scientific" dating is irrelevant if relative dating is all it takes to find oil or do other practical geological work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2016 6:16 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2016 9:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 36 by Pressie, posted 09-26-2016 7:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 222 (790918)
09-07-2016 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by kbertsche
09-07-2016 8:09 PM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
I'm aware of Glenn Morton's experience that changed his mind. I think he misinterpreted the data. I just reread the first few paragraphs and have the same opinion.
It remains interesting and important that there is no conflict between YEC assumptions and the practical work of finding oil, despite the familiar accusation that there is a conflict.
You brought up the change to OE beliefs, I didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2016 8:09 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2016 11:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 20 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2016 11:45 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 222 (790922)
09-07-2016 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by kbertsche
09-07-2016 11:45 PM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
I think I probably misread your Message 12. You say what the YEC view is which I read as your agreeing with it. Apparently you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2016 11:45 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Pressie, posted 09-08-2016 5:51 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 23 by kbertsche, posted 09-08-2016 6:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 222 (791788)
09-21-2016 4:12 PM


Maybe off topic
Since the exchange with Coyote on the Glenn Morton thread was declared off topic I thought maybe I could bring it over here, although it's really also off-topic here. Maybe it will have the virtue at least of not precipitating much of a discussion.
Coyote had said this in Message 404 on that thread:
YECs attempt to explain the physical world in terms of scripture, but the facts don't support that explanation. That leads to enormous stretches of interpretation, misinterpretation of facts, ignoring facts that run contrary to belief, in some cases making up facts, quote mining, and other problems.
I objected that he needed to support such a list of accusations, and in Message 406 he made the familiar statement that
one prime example is that YECs can't accept the results of a dozen or more different forms of dating that all agree, and all point to the same conclusion--an old earth.
And all I really want to say, that I didn't get to say on the other thread, is that I agree. That is true. This IS a case where Coyote is right that it is the Bible that determines the YEC's position on dating. The Bible gives historical markers that I believe set the Flood around 4500 years ago, give or take a few hundred years, and that is why I reject scientific dating methods.
But dating is Coyote's constant refrain. When he made that general accusation quoted above, "enormous stretches of interpretation, misinterpretation of facts, ignoring facts that run contrary to belief, in some cases making up facts, quote mining, and other problems" he clearly includes many other issues, and I still have to ask him to support these.
Maybe this is not the thread for it. Mostly I just wanted to say I agree that it is the Biblical framework that leads me to reject scientific dating methods. Beyond that I still claim to base my arguments on what I understand of the physical facts and not on the Bible.
As for the "assumptions" scientific dating is based on, I just don't get into dating issues at all if I can help it. The Bible pre-empts them and I haven't spent time trying to understand them for that reason.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2016 4:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 35 by Pressie, posted 09-26-2016 6:38 AM Faith 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