Message 208 of 222 (827718)
01-30-2018 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by DOCJ
01-28-2018 12:09 AM
Responding to some of your posts from the past few days...
Regarding your Message 163 to Taq:
|DOCJ in Message 163 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:
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.
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):
RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently 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.|
PaulK addressed your points directly, quoting them and then responding.
|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.
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.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 163 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:09 AM|| ||DOCJ has not yet responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 210 by JonF, posted 01-30-2018 6:49 PM|| ||Percy has acknowledged this reply|