Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

quote:

---

Because evos are asserting an age of Earth based upon unreliable methods/black boxes.

---

You have not shown this.

quote:

---

I am with Milton -

---

Ignorance loves company...

quote:

---

...nobody knows the age of the Earth except that it predates calendar history.

---

That is silly. You say there are no clues?

quote:

---

Dr. Scott for 25 years gave evos the benefit of all doubts and never said a bad word about their foundational claims. He is honest in reporting that Genesis could support a very old Earth. As recently as the year 2000 Dr. Scott changed his neutral stance and condemned the major tenets of evolution based upon the inescapable truths of Romans 1 AND the voluminous corroborating evidence. Yet, excluded from these condemnations were, and I quote, "I believe the Earth is of immense age".

---

Please explain. What is the corroborating evidence?

quote:

---

Dr. Scott also points out that evolutionary scenario and Biblical scenario are a chasm apart and only ONE can be correct. Big picture evidence smashes the evo scenario.

---

Once again, please present your evidence. How old is the earth according to your clock?

quote:

---

He believes that micro-evolution is a fact within species and that whatever hominid fossils in existence technically cannot jeopardize the claim of Genesis that God created Adam. Here we have the greatest theist scholar ...

---

Maybe he should try to be a little more scholar and a little less theist...

quote:

---

...in the world bending over backwards to accomodate evolution, yet evolutuonary scenario is so spoken up for and stringent that it can only be fashioned after the way their arch-nemesis predecessors - the medieval bishops ran the store = total intolerance.

---

Do you always have this problem with focussing?

quote:

---

Dr. Scott and I have ONE issue: God must be Creator, everything else is debateable. Reject Him ? Romans says why, which thus renders every other conclusion by these persons defective if they are offered to disprove a Biblical claim.

​

Milton has points and evidence which nobody can sensibly answer.

---

That is because they make no sense. Just like the geological time scale that he interpretes as a strat column. Yep, I can't answer that one!

quote:

---

My only interest is the declarations that the dating methods are reliable when they are not.

---

Then you have to explain why there are any concordant dates at all. THis should be impossible. I should have to conduct huge number of analyses to come up with a number of concordant dates by different methods.

quote:

---

Have your old Earth as long as this is not interpreted to somehow say Genesis is wrong.

---

Genesis is not wrong. You are.

quote:

---

Evos have criminally lumped every creationist to be a god-damn young Earth fundie - not true.

---

No. Some are simple nut cases.

quote:

---

You are employing what is called an idiot argument.

---

Yeah, well, I thought maybe it was appropriate.

quote:

---

You are asserting unless I agree with you that I am an idiot.

---

Actually, I gave you a reason to suspect Milton's reasoning. You failed to fathom it.

quote:

---

IOW, you are this esoterically enlightened chosen special person and I am too dumb to know that one of your kind gone astray is duping me.

---

Actually, it's one of your kind that is duping you. I'm just trying to help.

quote:

---

I find it interesting that you rely on a philosophical argument in a science topic instead of evidence. But I agree that philosophy is king and not science.

---

Actually, it wasn't philosophical at all, it was a simple fact. If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.

quote:

---

But to make it very simple and easy to understand: Dating scientists who are evos are engaged in fraud in the exact same manner Pyramidologists who are theists are engaged in fraud.

---

Yes, WT, everyone is committing fraud but people who agree with you.

quote:

---

Because your evidence is seen to support your claims then it must be fraud or unsupported assertions or a combo of both.

---

Or it might support the claims...This is beyond silly, WT.

quote:

---

Any interested or curious reader has been exposed to the lines of argument and evidentiary bases on which geological chronology is based. The spurious arguments provided by creationists and such cranks as Milton have been exposed and refuted. However there is no hope of this seeping through Willowtree's personal firewall of fantasy, ignorance and doublethink.

---

Well, there is the contrarian argument that the more WT says, the more validated evolution becomes to lurkers.Basically, I agree, however: it is rather pointless. That is why I prefer not to put much actual work into responses to people like WT.

quote:

---

Why else are the discard/reject dates rejected ?

---

How do you know they exist, if they were discarded? Where are the thousands, if no millions of discarded, discordant dates now? Who paid for them?

quote:

---

KBS Tuff was one dating event that was used by me to show this.

---

And your argument has been dispatched. You failed to show your point.

quote:

---

You will NEVER leave the ballpark of what is already known/published.

---

Suuuurrrre. That's why we still believe in geosynclinal theory.

quote:

---

And what is already known/published is a database of self-fulfilling predictions that has no independant and external accuracy check.

---

Actually, we do have independent confirmation. That is why we use mulitple radiometric techniques, varve counts, tree ring counts, hydration rims, and other techniques. On top of that we have basic strattigraphy and structural interpretations that confirm the relative ages of geological features. The point is that if you were correct, it should be virtually impossible to come up with concordant dates.

quote:

---

The parents are always the last to find out and believe terrible things about their kids.

---

Good point. Do you parents know what you have done with the education they provided you with?

quote:

---

No one can even comprehend a million years.

---

In your case, I agree.

quote:

---

I just want to remind that I said techniques do work but not all the time.

---

It is funny however, that they fail most spectacularly when used by YECs. And does your watch work ALL of the time? This is a silly point, WT. Obviously, nothing works ALL of the time. THat is not a prerequisite of a theory or any other technique.

quote:

---

"As reported in the Journal radio carbon in 1986 scientists used C-14 to date an Egyptian mummy linen....as well as two Peruvian linen cloths....they knew the age of these they dug them out of graves.

​

" It demonstrated that the method is somewhat wanting ... "

​

" ...Separate ends of a single thread (little smaller than a postage stamp) were dated with one end dating 200 AD and the other end of the same thread dating 1000 AD....the wide divergence in dating on the same thread should be alarming to those who consider the 1988 test definitive. " END Journal quote

​

Again, when age of material is known and a technique fails this becomes the basis to tag the method unreliable.

---

And again, how do you know about these dates? According to you they were thrown out.