Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 6:35 AM
15 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,955 Year: 4,992/19,786 Month: 1,114/873 Week: 10/460 Day: 10/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18369
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 61 of 114 (29398)
01-17-2003 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Watson
01-17-2003 1:10 PM


Hi, Watson! I'm happy see you're still here. Sorry to give you a hard time.

People who have been here a while already know that Percy and Admin are the same person. It's on my list of things to do to get the admin names posted visibly somewhere, but I'm up to my ears in other improvements right now. I'll take this opportunity to alphabetically list the administrators:

Admin: Percipient (evolutionist)
Adminaquility: Tranquility Base (Creationist)
Adminnemooseus: minnemooseus (evolutionst)

I took the opportunity presented by your posts to try to publicize some of the issues the admins wrestle with. No one posted a response, so most likely they all thought Percy had finally flipped (and who knows, maybe I have ).

Thanks for the offers of information, but most of it would be off-topic for this thread. Feel free to open new threads if you'd like to kick off a discussion about any of them. I think the question you were asking Wmscott, before I interrupted, was whether the smelting of radioactive metal ores by native Americans would affect the radiometric dating of their bones, and I agree with Wmscott's answer that it would not, though not through the same line of reasoning. Organic material is dated via radiocarbon dating, not radiometric metal dating. Even had they ingested huge amounts of radioactive metals that became incorporated into their bones, it wouldn't affect the dating of the carbon by modern techniques (AMS - Accelerator Mass Spectrometry).

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-17-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Watson, posted 01-17-2003 1:10 PM Watson has not yet responded

    
katareen
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 114 (36998)
04-14-2003 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by wj
08-23-2002 6:46 AM


Greetings everyone. I realize I have almost no experience in this forum, but reading all of the posts, I am ashamed at my fellow evolutionists. No one should be attacked, insulted, or criticized for WHAT they believe, no matter how incredulous their beliefs may seem. I am ashamed at the sassy and rude insinuations the creationists are receiving on our part. If we truly desire for them to accept what we know is true, the best way is gentle persuasion and thorough explanations. Responding to anyone in an offensive manner will only bring about defense from them, not consideration for what we believe. I would encourage all of us to approach these issues with a genuine concern for what the other believes, not a heated annoyance.
Cheers
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by wj, posted 08-23-2002 6:46 AM wj has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 4:22 PM katareen has responded
 Message 64 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-14-2003 4:23 PM katareen has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 63 of 114 (36999)
04-14-2003 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by katareen
04-14-2003 3:51 PM


Qualified agreement
(This might be in the wrong place -- I guess an admin can move it)

I agree with you in spirit. That is that all of us on both sides should remain polite and reasonably respectful.

However, we are all human and some lapses might be acceptable if the provocation is enough. There are individuals who pop up, post junk without checking that it has already been discussed ( I lurked for a couple of months before posting) and then run off into cyberspace (booboo shows some characteristics of that kind). I find it hard to remain respectful of this kind of behaviour. But I agree with you that I should anyway. I will try.

Maybe there should be a separate thread (no, I think there definitely should be along the lines of the "post of the month") that picks examples of dubious posting behaviour and suggests a better approach to it.

Here's an example of a post I made today.

The original post was:
"The Ceolocanth was thought to be a fish that was part-dinosaur and was extinct for millions of years,"
My Response was:
"LOL LOL LOL LOL -- part dinosaur!!! "

I think this response qualifies as "sassy" and maybe "rude".

If I try to creatively construct a defense for it that might go like this:

The individual posting this needs to know when he has stepped over a line in a fashion that makes him look foolish. If I simply say something like:
"The coelocanth is in now way part dinosaur." It just doesn't convey that problem and he might not learn to be more careful of his facts.

quote:
truly desire for them to accept

I'm afraid that underlying my views on this is the pretty strong conviction that they are not going to do that. You say you are new to this forum. Watch how effective reasoned and even polite discussion is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by katareen, posted 04-14-2003 3:51 PM katareen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by katareen, posted 04-21-2003 3:44 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 64 of 114 (37000)
04-14-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by katareen
04-14-2003 3:51 PM


What did you find sassy, rude or offensive in the specific post you replied to?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by katareen, posted 04-14-2003 3:51 PM katareen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 4:56 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 65 of 114 (37005)
04-14-2003 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Mister Pamboli
04-14-2003 4:23 PM


New Discussion
Could we create a new thread to deal with "rudeness" I think it might be a useful historical reference for new members to understand how to behave (myself included )

I'm being lazy and can't quickly find out how to. Not sure if I'm allowed to as a "junior".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-14-2003 4:23 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
katareen
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 114 (37431)
04-21-2003 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by NosyNed
04-14-2003 4:22 PM


Re: Qualified agreement
Yeah, I'm new to this forum. However, I have already seen some posts that have had personally degrading responses to info that yes, may have already been covered or is not completely relevant or researched, but I do not have enough time to find and quote them...
You've said that being nice may not be all that effective, but it really depends on your definition of effectiveness. Some might think that being effective means making people angry and frustrated with their debates while others may feel that effectiveness lies in other means of debate. Even if the opposing view does not accept what our opinions are, not offending them purposely will certainly make them more respectful and possibly more open to a friendly exchange of ideas...
Just a thought. :]
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 4:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2003 4:41 AM katareen has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 114 (37432)
04-21-2003 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by katareen
04-21-2003 3:44 AM


Re: Qualified agreement
I can understand the propriety of civility; however when one's opponent makes such a remark as (for instance) "the foundation of life is life", how is one to respond except with some much-deserved disdain?

Honestly if creationists want a higher degree of discourse with evolutionists maybe they should get better arguments than "I know I'm right because god sayz so." Can there be any response beyond a little measured disdain in a scientific forum?

The people who genuinely seek knowledge are to be treated with the respect that they deserve for they are the honest seekers of truth. Those, however, on an agenda to misinform draw nothing but sarcasm. I don't really have a problem with this. Although sometimes it's hard to tell between those who are genuinely lacking knowledge and those who are playing dumb. I admit we should do a better job of distinguishing between them.

At any rate, it's not just the evolutionists who are rude. I for one find it really rude of people to assume that just because I don't believe in god or its commandments that I advocate a position of total moral anarchy, have no purpose in life, and deny the dignity of human beings. That's quite a lot to assume from one statement, in my view, and an erroneous one - I've never met such an atheist and I suspect they don't really exist.

Sorry, getting off-topic. I agree that us evo's can get a little terse, but I maintain it's just with the people who deserve it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by katareen, posted 04-21-2003 3:44 AM katareen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 3:06 PM crashfrog has responded

  
katareen
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 114 (77377)
01-09-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
04-21-2003 4:41 AM


Re: Qualified agreement
I apologize if I seemed to state that only evolutionists are rude, but I meant no such thing. I, as an evolutionist, really can only speak to my "fellow" evolutionists regarding this issue, because it would be quite rude of me to address the creationists. If there is a creationist who agrees with me, so be it, and they can speak to their own kind, but it stands I will not openly criticize them, only their theories. A person should be treated with respect whether or not their inteligence is high or their theories are ridiculous. When following your logic, one could say anything to anyone just because. For instance, "I can speak rudely to creationists because they are dumb." Under this logic, a parent could be very rude to their child who has not fully developed yet because they are "dumb," or one could behave rudely to a mentally handicapped person because they are superior in mental capacity. If one believes themself to have better or superior mental capacities or inteligence or knowledge, it would be quite humane to not abuse that power or act like they are indeed better. Cheers
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2003 4:41 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 3:13 PM katareen has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 114 (77380)
01-09-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by katareen
01-09-2004 3:06 PM


When following your logic, one could say anything to anyone just because. For instance, "I can speak rudely to creationists because they are dumb."

I challenge you to quote where I said anything of the sort. I never advocated being rude to dumb people. I advocated being rude to rude people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 3:06 PM katareen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 9:32 PM crashfrog has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3698 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 70 of 114 (77440)
01-09-2004 7:58 PM


Did any evolutionists test the basalt adnormality that Austin found proving the rubidium-strontium method flawed, or do they just sweep it under the rug, I would think the basalt layers Austin brought in question could easily be tested, and could be re-tested against A/A, K/A, U/Pb methods, to verify if these other methods agree or disagree with rubidium-strontium, or is the basalt above really that much older than the basalt layer below, etc...

P.S. It would appear that the dating methods do not all agree, with each other, etc...


Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 01-09-2004 8:20 PM johnfolton has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4552
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 71 of 114 (77448)
01-09-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by johnfolton
01-09-2004 7:58 PM


Ah, your running away was only from that thread where everyone was thoroughtly sick of your repeated unsuported assertions, not from this board.

There was no need to test, Austin's results are easily explained without any further tests, and do not prove anything other than Austin's dishonesty. Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project. Austin's paper fools only the gullible and ignorant.

When one studies the real data, the dating methods do agree with each other.

Etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by johnfolton, posted 01-09-2004 7:58 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 01-09-2004 9:12 PM JonF has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3698 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 72 of 114 (77464)
01-09-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by JonF
01-09-2004 8:20 PM


JonF, No, had nothing else to contribute, other than they are finding that argon gas is part of the off gases coming out of oil wells, finding argon gas in coal mines, proving Snelling correct in that not all argon is tied up within the rocks, though likely argon is rising up from the inner earth, etc...
P.S. Its interesting that the evolutionist didn't retest the basalts in question, would seem it would of been a feather in your cap, to prove the accuracy, between all your dating methods, wasn't this the real issue, etc...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 01-09-2004 8:20 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 9:41 AM johnfolton has responded

  
katareen
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 114 (77466)
01-09-2004 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
01-09-2004 3:13 PM


I never said that you stated that, merely that "one could" under your logic state anything like that. Is the state of "lacking knowloedge" or "playing dumb" rudeness? I see no evidence in your statement that implies that you believe they are.
"The people who genuinely seek knowledge are to be treated with the respect that they deserve for they are the honest seekers of truth. Those, however, on an agenda to misinform draw nothing but sarcasm. I don't really have a problem with this. Although sometimes it's hard to tell between those who are genuinely lacking knowledge and those who are playing dumb. I admit we should do a better job of distinguishing between them."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 3:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 9:37 PM katareen has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 114 (77468)
01-09-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by katareen
01-09-2004 9:32 PM


merely that "one could" under your logic state anything like that.

How, exactly? How do you get from "rude to the rude" to "rude to the dumb?" That's what I don't understand. "Rude to the rude" doesn't justify "rude to the dumb."

I see no evidence in your statement that implies that you believe they are.

So then why do you think my logic applies to the exact situation that I said it didn't apply to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by katareen, posted 01-09-2004 9:32 PM katareen has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3698 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 75 of 114 (77502)
01-09-2004 11:33 PM


[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-10-2004]


  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019