Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,617 Year: 4,874/9,624 Month: 222/427 Week: 32/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22612
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 46 of 93 (478183)
08-12-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by JonF
08-12-2008 4:56 PM


Re: common Pb corrections
I think Joe would be well advised to consider the words of hecd2 written in reply to Peaceharris's post:
hecd2 writes:
I was inclined to post the data from the papers I quoted determining the age of the KT boundary (in spite of my reluctance to do his homework for him), since he probably does have difficulty in accessing the primary literature in Malaysia, but I am now disinclined to do so, since he has not increased my confidence that he can deal professionally and knowledgeably with the data.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 08-12-2008 4:56 PM JonF has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 47 of 93 (478190)
08-12-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by JonF
08-12-2008 4:56 PM


Re: common Pb corrections
Very interesting read. So, basically peaceharris has some massive conspiracy in the minds of geochronologists around the world. Furthermore, it's interesting that peaceharris feels that only he truly understands the data. Reminds me of the 'quack identifying characteristics':
1. Quack scientists will always claim 'the revolution is here' when in fact their quack science is either old and discredited or based on other quack science.
2. Quack scientists will usually claim bias by the 'blind mainstream'. In fact, mainstream science is all about overturning bad ideas. Ideas are constantly challenged. Scientists question and are accepting of questions. Quack scientists largely whine about science.
3. Quack supporters tend to hop from quack hypothesis to quack hypothesis or cling dogmatically to a single quack hypothesis even when shown to be wrong.
4. Quack supporters often have a hidden agenda like proving the earth is young.
I was particularly amused at his accusations regarding Tom Krogh who is very well known for his expertise in developing new techniques and rigorous testing of the U-Pb system. This borders on the ridiculous and since the goal is to demonstrate that the earth is really 6000 years old, it has nothing at all to do with the very real controversy generated by our paper. It's also quite apparent that peaceharris has trouble understanding the raw data, but I will of course still provide it if he/she is willing to provide me the information I requested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 08-12-2008 4:56 PM JonF has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5675 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 48 of 93 (478196)
08-12-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Joe Meert
08-12-2008 12:20 PM


Re: common Pb corrections
There are no '(biological) evolutionary assumptions' to geochronology. There is merely the assumption (verified in numerous ways) that the decay rates have been constant over time.
Thats a biggie but more than that when was the earth created might well be different when those elements that your dating were created by the big bang, cosmic radiation? I suspect a lot of other assumptions heck you kind of sound like an uniformitists?
It seems you are talking about decay rates but how old are the elements since the big bang. Were they formed from a collapsing star, cosmic radiation, the big bang, etc...
If you believe the earth was created from the elements in space like space dust travelling at near the speed of light. If so then these elements including lead would of not have been aging before the earth itself was created from these elements.
If the space dust is not older than 6,000 years, just because their atomic clocks are wound up from the big bang means nothing as to the age of an element. The entire universe could be 13,000 years old but the space dust might not of aged at all, like a photon.
If a photon is ageless well then the earth elements might well be only 6,000 perhaps 13,000 years old since the big bang. It might well be about relativity the spaceship twin analogy but do we really know when the elements were created all we have is different decay ratios it seems uniformitists? assume an old earth.
But were the decay rates constant over time, before the earth was were the elements (space dust) aging since the big bang, before earth time was created through the creation of the earth from space dust 6,000 to 13,000 years ago, by our creator, etc...
If you believe the decay rates have been constant then you don't believe neutrons or alpha radiation affects or contributes to the decay rates of lead, C14 within the earth. If the elements did not form within the earth then scientists really are clueless as to the exact age of the earth all these uniformitists can do is assume an old earth and that the decay rates have been constant over time.
The space ship twin analogy kind of supports the young earthers, the decay rates were pretty much set in concrete before the earth was created. Does a photon age at the same rate as the earth presently ages, etc...
P.S. Because of relativity the elements and the earth could well be only 6,000 to 13,000 years old since our creator created present earth time, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Joe Meert, posted 08-12-2008 12:20 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by JonF, posted 08-12-2008 8:34 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 50 by Joe Meert, posted 08-12-2008 9:02 PM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 251 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 49 of 93 (478198)
08-12-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by johnfolton
08-12-2008 7:56 PM


Re: common Pb corrections
Radiometric dating measures the age of rocks and minerals, not age of the atoms that make them up. So all of your message is meaningless gobbledygook, except for one sentence:
If you believe the decay rates have been constant then you don't believe neutrons or alpha radiation affects or contributes to the decay rates of lead, C14 within the earth.
Yup, you got it. It's not really "belief", it's a conclusion from masses of experimental and theoretical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 08-12-2008 7:56 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 50 of 93 (478199)
08-12-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by johnfolton
08-12-2008 7:56 PM


Re: common Pb corrections
quote:
Thats a biggie but more than that when was the earth created might well be different when those elements that your dating were created by the big bang, cosmic radiation? I suspect a lot of other assumptions heck you kind of sound like an uniformitists?
It seems you are talking about decay rates but how old are the elements since the big bang. Were they formed from a collapsing star, cosmic radiation, the big bang, etc...
If you believe the earth was created from the elements in space like space dust travelling at near the speed of light. If so then these elements including lead would of not have been aging before the earth itself was created from these elements.
If the space dust is not older than 6,000 years, just because their atomic clocks are wound up from the big bang means nothing as to the age of an element. The entire universe could be 13,000 years old but the space dust might not of aged at all, like a photon.
If a photon is ageless well then the earth elements might well be only 6,000 perhaps 13,000 years old since the big bang. It might well be about relativity the spaceship twin analogy but do we really know when the elements were created all we have is different decay ratios it seems uniformitists? assume an old earth.
But were the decay rates constant over time, before the earth was were the elements (space dust) aging since the big bang, before earth time was created through the creation of the earth from space dust 6,000 to 13,000 years ago, by our creator, etc...
If you believe the decay rates have been constant then you don't believe neutrons or alpha radiation affects or contributes to the decay rates of lead, C14 within the earth. If the elements did not form within the earth then scientists really are clueless as to the exact age of the earth all these uniformitists can do is assume an old earth and that the decay rates have been constant over time.
The space ship twin analogy kind of supports the young earthers, the decay rates were pretty much set in concrete before the earth was created. Does a photon age at the same rate as the earth presently ages, etc...
P.S. Because of relativity the elements and the earth could well be only 6,000 to 13,000 years old since our creator created present earth time, etc...
Hmm, the concept of 'desperate word salad' comes to mind. How about you make your arguments one at a time and in some coherent manner? Thanks in advance.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 08-12-2008 7:56 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by johnfolton, posted 08-13-2008 2:30 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 51 of 93 (478201)
08-12-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Joe Meert
08-12-2008 8:39 AM


Re: True or False?
Joe writes:
Now, peaceharris since you've called my integrity into question,...
I am not questioning your integrity. I have made it clear in a previous post that I don't believe you will manipulate your data. The very fact that I am asking you for raw data implies that I am not questioning the integrity of your raw data.
What I intend to do is statistical tests and calculations on your raw data to see if it fits your model.
Let's put it this way: I'm not questioning your integrity, but your method. Basically what I understand from your previous posts is this: If it fits the Concordia, there is very little common Pb. I will accept your raw data at face value without questioning it.
Joe writes:
might I suspect that you will abuse and misrepresent the work of myself and 7 other colleagues for religious purposes?
I won't call it 'abuse', just doing my own calculation and sharing it with others.
Joe writes:
I'm not going to blindly share data with someone who has already called me a liar.
In which post did I call you a liar? Is asking for raw data and not accepting your word that your data fits the Concordia amount to calling you a liar?
Joe writes:
I'll snail mail you the data. You give me your real name, your real address along with the names of the others who will be using these data
I prefer if you give me the data in a MS word format without printing and snail mailing it to me. If it's in a word format, I can copy and paste the data from Word to Excel. If you send me a printed copy, I will have to retype your data.
Can you reconsider your deal to send me a printed copy?
Joe writes:
it's interesting that peaceharris feels that only he truly understands the data.
What if I can find statistical tests that prove that the raw data (not the common Pb corrected data) fits my model better than yours? Will you then admit that I am the only one who understands the data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Joe Meert, posted 08-12-2008 8:39 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Joe Meert, posted 08-12-2008 9:57 PM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 08-13-2008 3:18 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 52 of 93 (478202)
08-12-2008 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by peaceharris
08-12-2008 9:47 PM


Re: True or False?
I will need your snail mail address (I can send a CD with digital data) along with the names of others you will be sharing the data with. If you do that, I have no issues with sending you the raw data. I have reservations about sending data to some anonymous individual. What's the problem with revealing your identity? I don't have an issue sharing my contact information.
Cheers
Joe Meert
PS: You have indeed questioned my integrity and you're blind if you can't see that.
Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by peaceharris, posted 08-12-2008 9:47 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5675 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 53 of 93 (478229)
08-13-2008 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Joe Meert
08-12-2008 9:02 PM


Time not relative
Hmm, the concept of 'desperate word salad' comes to mind. How about you make your arguments one at a time and in some coherent manner? Thanks in advance.
Sometimes wonder if the "old earth" is a better example of a desperate two word salad. Is it that they all know the missing links are not missing so all the old earthers have left is to press the earth is an old one and to somehow include the fossil record.
Kent Hovind one of the greatest scientific minds of our day called this circular dating, or fraud saying a fossil is old. Thank God we have the RATE Boys, etc...They have found enough ratio left in most fossils to date them directly and interestingly all date young!!!!!!!! The old earthers cry foul, because its proving the earth is but a young one. Creationist are moving science forward yet the old earthers keep trying to take science backwards, etc...
P.S. I think most people agree time is not relative meaning your seeing light photons that have not aged yet the earth is aging faster due to the earth resting on nothing (space curving inward not outward) propelling the earth forward not backwards in time.
Since akjv genesis 1:1 says heaven does not say heavens like the altered bible versions. Its interesting one can press the case the earth is a young earth because the elements in space not believed to be aging at the same rate as the rest of the heavens. The rest of the heavens could be 10 billion years old yet the elements in space might well be not aging. The earth might truely be a young earth, etc...
Since genesis creation days does not take credit for the creation of the heavens its no mystery that there was light from the heavens to shine thru the heaven of the earth on day 4 to provide light for the creatures and that this starlight is good.
P.S. If the creationists would just read the bible as written they would not include the heavens in genesis 1:1.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Joe Meert, posted 08-12-2008 9:02 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by anglagard, posted 08-13-2008 2:55 AM johnfolton has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 54 of 93 (478230)
08-13-2008 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by johnfolton
08-13-2008 2:30 AM


Law (at the time) not relative
johnfolton writes:
Kent Hovind one of the greatest scientific minds of our day
And one of the greatest modern experts in US local, state, and Constitutional Law.
Edited by anglagard, : title

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by johnfolton, posted 08-13-2008 2:30 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by johnfolton, posted 08-13-2008 3:12 AM anglagard has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5675 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 55 of 93 (478231)
08-13-2008 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by anglagard
08-13-2008 2:55 AM


Re: Law (at the time) not relative
And one of the greatest modern experts in US local, state, and Constitutional Law.
Shows we need more conservative federal judges, so science can move forward in respect to questioning the theory of evolution in public schools. Florida law (killed Terry in spite of her family willing to care for her)we all saw her slowly die after they took the feeding tube away, etc... however Kent suspect will be part of Zechariah 14:5.
P.S. The Feds appeared to use Kent as an example so you too would not challenge the idiocy of the IRS.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by anglagard, posted 08-13-2008 2:55 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by anglagard, posted 08-13-2008 3:24 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 59 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-13-2008 5:09 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 56 of 93 (478232)
08-13-2008 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by peaceharris
08-12-2008 9:47 PM


Integrity
I am not questioning your integrity.
Yes, you most definitly have.
peaceharris writes:
My faith in your word is weak.
Message 36

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by peaceharris, posted 08-12-2008 9:47 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 57 of 93 (478233)
08-13-2008 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by johnfolton
08-13-2008 3:12 AM


Off Topic BS
If you would like to start a topic concerning the supposed 'genius' of Kent Hovind please feel free.
I've said what needed to be said about his mental or moral 'superiority' over us mere intellectuals and US military veterans (whose pay and benefits you evidently don't support) and prefer to leave this discussion where it belongs -- far over your head.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity
Edited by anglagard, : more clarity

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by johnfolton, posted 08-13-2008 3:12 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 58 of 93 (478237)
08-13-2008 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
08-12-2008 1:12 PM


Re: common Pb corrections
Percy writes:
So once you prove that Joe's analysis is wrong for a 1 billion year age for the Vindhyan Basin, don't you next have to prove wrong the previously accepted age of 500-700 million years?
I may not get the opportunity to prove Joe’s analysis is wrong. The practice here is to close the thread after it reaches ~300 posts. There is already too much of noise in this thread, 20 posts per day (most of them being non-technical posts). At this rate, the 300 post limit will be reached before I even start to analyze Joe’s data.
I have given my home address to Joe, and assuming that I get the data after 2 weeks, I will still need a few weeks to analyze his data. So my next post will definitely take some time, maybe a month or so.
percy writes:
Don't you believe in a 6000 year-old Earth?
Can we use this thread just to discuss JM’s data and calculations?
As the owner of this website, can you close this thread temporarily to avoid this thread reaching the 300 post limit even before I start analyzing the data?
I don’t want to waste my time responding to this type of questions and accusations that I have called Joe a liar. I have every right to analyze his data before accepting his word and ignore questions not related to JM’s paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 08-12-2008 1:12 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Admin, posted 08-13-2008 8:50 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 59 of 93 (478238)
08-13-2008 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by johnfolton
08-13-2008 3:12 AM


Would you please keep your off-topic blather out of topics
The subtitle warning is to johnfolton.
It would really be nice if others didn't let themselves get dragged down to and into johnfolton's messes.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by johnfolton, posted 08-13-2008 3:12 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Joe Meert, posted 08-13-2008 3:43 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 60 of 93 (478250)
08-13-2008 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by peaceharris
08-13-2008 4:52 AM


Re: common Pb corrections
If this thread reaches 300 posts then just propose another thread to continue the discussion. Sequel threads are almost always promoted, and its opening post provides an opportunity to refocus discussion, which usually drifts in long threads.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by peaceharris, posted 08-13-2008 4:52 AM peaceharris 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