Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

quote:

---

The specifics are starting to seem pointless, which was the whole point of my post. I'm losing interest in telling you about specifics because you don't seem to acknowledge them most of the time. You seem bent on viewing everyone who disagrees with you as a brainwashed slave of the evo paradigm. But many of us were taught what you were and, through honest pursuit of the truth, realized we had been deceived. It's rather insulting to hear your blanket dismissals, and kills the spirit of good faith debate.

---

Well, I guess such a response is easier than the trench warfare of rigorous debate.

Trench warfare can be entertaining, but not when the response to your carefully planned charge is just gas, gas, gas.You were going to tell us, with some scientific basis, why all radiometric dating methods are bogus. Or, if you prefer, "bogasized." All you've done so far is make vague, unfounded speculations about possible uncertainty that would skew the results... even though they all tend to agree very well. When substantial objections are made, you then make a sweeping generalization about the inability of everyone here to understand and mentally process factual information, just because we have been taught about an idea that you don't understand. You see it as some kind of trump card, I see it as unfair play. It's a subtle ad hominem that excuses you from learning basic information that's vital to the subjects at hand, and keeps us from real debate by miring the thread in attempts to explain scientific facts that, contrary to your belief, are not part of an evo conspiracy but stand quite well on their own. It's not trench warfare, it's at best a snowball fight.

Because you don't understand the arguments you're making you also don't understand the rebuttals. This isn't to say you're right or wrong, only that the discussions in which you're participating have for some time now been somewhat nonsensical because of this. You don't need to "know everything about these things in order to debate," but you should confine yourself to debating those things you *do* actually know or have taken the time to inform yourself about.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Buz, Unsupported bullpuckey. Which makes your conclusion..... ....supported by nothing other than bullpuckey.That geologists are locked into a ToE paradigm is a figment of your imagination, nothing more.Your problem is that you are trying to gainsay millions of hours of science with nothing more than your opinion. Worse, when shown the data that contradicts you, you reject it on the basis of.....your opinion. If only your incredulity & opinion were empirical evidence, Buz. You have been given data that supports radiometric dating, which shows it beyond all reasonable doubt that your rejection of radiometric dating is unwarranted. Unless odds of millions to one plus against your position you think is reasonable, that is. Why do you still reject it? I've measured things with a ruler incorrectly, should we throw them away because errors do occur? Does that invalidate the method & all results? No, of course not. It is a standard creationist logical flaw to point to a small piece of data & claim it is indicative of all results.You seem to have a very high regard for your own opinion, seemingly at the expense of knowledge gleaned by people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of increasing understanding of the world around us when you yourself refuse to be educated. I suppose you are left with nothing other than your opinion, if that is the case.Take your assertion that the rock & the fossils encased within it are different ages. Did you even think about what you said? Both myself & others have pointed out that this requires mud to remain unlithified across the earths surface (all of it) for 3.5 billion years, when suddenly everything dies & the rock magically lithifies! But your ridiculous scenario doesn't end there. Certain organisms are only found in rocks of certain age ranges. How did they know where to die, or how deep to dig (for chrissakes), in order to be found globally, in many cases, only in those aged rocks. Furthermore, when taxa appear, they tend to do so basally, becoming more distinct & diverse as time goes by. How can this be true in your flood/globally unlithified mud scenario?The flood certainly seems to be at odds with your own explanation.Now, do you, or do you not, have any substantive response to this, & message 18, & message 35?Lastly, what is illogical about the ToE? If it meets the standards of the scientific method, ie an inductively derived hypothesis that makes testable predictions that have been realised, then it is logical, surely? No strawmen please!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 06-25-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 06-25-2003]

quote:

---

Because you don't understand the arguments you're making you also don't understand the rebuttals. This isn't to say you're right or wrong, only that the discussions in which you're participating have for some time now been somewhat nonsensical because of this. You don't need to "know everything about these things in order to debate," but you should confine yourself to debating those things you *do* actually know or have taken the time to inform yourself about.

---

With all due respect, are you considering the links I have posted to show some of the problems and weaknesses of dateing methods to somewhat bolster my case? It appears that when I begin to bring these supportive things to strengthen my argument, so many begin to get uptight and personal rather than sticking to addressing links and views which I post?

quote:

---

With all due respect, are you considering the links I have posted to show some of the problems and weaknesses of dateing methods to somewhat bolster my case? It appears that when I begin to bring these supportive things to strengthen my argument, so many begin to get uptight and personal rather than sticking to addressing links and views which I post?

---

If you're referring to the discussion to which you linked in post 54, the best argument I could find there was "We have a fossil record showing the extinction of 75% of species; therefore, 100% of species should have gone extinct." It was laughed off because it's so obviously illogical. That thread also mentioned coccoliths, which are devastating to a YEC because of the huge volume of the deposits found worldwide and their inability to settle in violently churning waters. Even in still water, the YEC timeframe doesn't allow enough time for them to form.I hope you don't consider this response uptight and personal. I'm doing my best to avoid my past failings

quote:

---

....supported by nothing other than bullpuckey.

---

Would you like to comment on the Berkeley link and some arguments on the forum link which Karl makes about the K/T boundary, or are these simply too bullpucistical to qualify a response?

quote:

---

Your problem is that you are trying to gainsay millions of hours of science with nothing more than your opinion. Worse, when shown the data that contradicts you, you reject it on the basis of.....your opinion. If only your incredulity & opinion were empirical evidence, Buz. You have been given data that supports radiometric dating, which shows it beyond all reasonable doubt that your rejection of radiometric dating is unwarranted.

---

Again, in spite of these millions of hours of science, honest scientists who really face the enormity of time scores of millions to billions of years ago really is to the limited mind of man, admit there's a lot we just don't know for sure and it's not like a debate on the civil war or something where we can confidently say, "this is how it was."Some are asking "where have all the creationists gone," and I'm beginning to see why few care to debate folks like you who think you have all the answers so down pat and they're all fools for not buying what you all think you know every age step all the way back to billions of years ago.

Buz, On the contrary, due to the power of corroborative evidence, I can say say with a confidence of 71,639,296:1 that there are tektites 65 million years old at the K-T boundary, & that therefore the K-T boundary is 65 myo. Isn't that good enough for you? Why not?The truth is, theres a lot you'd like to hand wave away, this is why you haven't dealt with message 18, non?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Again, in spite of these millions of hours of science, honest scientists who really face the enormity of time scores of millions to billions of years ago really is to the limited mind of man, admit there's a lot we just don't know for sure and it's not like a debate on the civil war or something where we can confidently say, "this is how it was."

---

But until you give their research an honest look, you don't have the right to just assume it's all useless. You're depriving yourself of useful knowledge based on a convenient assumption.

I already did - post 60.

Buz, Sure, as soon as you tell me what contradicts my position. When your cite speaks of difficulties with resolution, They are talking 1my in either direction. This supports my argument, but, perhaps more seriously, your own cite contradicts your own argument.I have already provided figures that tell you exactly how some K-T material was dated that provides results that are astonishingly concordant at around 65 my, I would suggest that your source is in broad agreement with me, & in disagreement with you. But again you miss the point. This thread is about radiometric dating reliability, & your cite barely touches it, except to say radiocarbon dating won't work on fossils that are > 50,000 years old, &.... It means by "less accurate" to mean a percentage point. I can live with that. It's the about same margin of error that the Vesuvius eruption was dated (within about 7 years, if my memory serves me). Read your cite again for comprehension.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 06-25-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 06-25-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 06-25-2003]

I know it must feel to you that you're arguing well and are being unfairly treated, but your regular claims that you don't need to understand what you're discussing should serve as a warning sign that all is not well, even to yourself. Even evidence that is wrong or wrongly interpreted cannot be countered with ignorance.At a moderated site such as this the role of moderators is to facilitate discussion and keep things moving along. Sometime next week I'll probably start enforcing the guidelines a little more strictly in the threads where it seems called for. This is only because of available time. Other moderators can step in as they deem appropriate. Perhaps they don't agree with me. If you think it might help you might try contacting Adminnemooseus or AdminTC via email.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

You seem to have a very high regard for your own opinion, seemingly at the expense of knowledge gleaned by people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of increasing understanding of the world around us when you yourself refuse to be educated. I suppose you are left with nothing other than your opinion, if that is the case.

---

The reason i use links of others; some possibly more educated in science than some of you is that I am learnig and seek more than my opinion contrary to what you are falsly alleging about me personally.

quote:

---

I have already provided figures that tell you exactly how some K-T material was dated that provides results that are astonishingly concordant at around 65 my, I would suggest that your source is in broad agreement with me, & in disagreement with you. But again you miss the point. This thread is about radiometric dating reliability, & your cite barely touches it, except to say radiocarbon dating won't work on fossils that are > 50,000 years old, &....

---

............And this, the rest of his age data quote:

quote:

---

.......Other methods of age determination are often less accurate or less useful in certain situations. So we don't know exactly when the dinosaurs went extinct, and matching events precisely to give a picture of what was happening at a specific moment in the Mesozoic is not easy. Thus, the ultimate question of a gradual decline of dinosaurs vs. a sudden cataclysm is almost intractable without a wealth of good data.

---

The above from a Berkley scientist which offers some, I say some, credence to certain statements I've made in my posts regarding the reliability of these dating methods.
I know you responded to this quoted statement in 72 above, but in your statement here your implication is that the only dating input he offered was in regard to radiocarbon dating, which, of course is not the case.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-25-2003]