|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,511 Year: 6,768/9,624 Month: 108/238 Week: 25/83 Day: 1/3 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
Apparently, dating cave paintings is quite difficult; carbon dating requires the destruction of at least some of the painting and can give quite a range. Also many paintings use pigments that don't contain carbon.
Sometimes bones, fires and other signs of human habitation are found in the caves that can also be dated but you then have to assume that those inhabitants also made the paintings. They also use uranium dating as sometimes calcite forms over or under the painting. (The beginnings of stalagmites). QI Rock (Art) of Ages: Indonesian Cave Paintings Are 40,000 Years Old | Science|
Smithsonian Magazine Defining the age of a rock or cave painting | Resource | RSC EducationJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
No, it's not a fact. The Catholic Church doesn't have an "official position" on evolution and it doesn't teach that "evolution is the only answer we have."
Now, the Catholic position is also that evolution explains the origin of the body but not the mind, but that's quibbling. The fact remains that the official position of one of the largest religious sects on the planet is that evolution is the only answer we have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
You're replying to a message that is nearly five years old, and its author, Rrhain, last visited this site over three years ago.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
And his reply is way wrong since the catholic church has had changing official doctrines on evolution forever. The latest, I guess, is not to his liking.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
My understanding is that the age of fossils is determined by the age of the sedimentary rock they are formed and found in. But sedimentary rock consists of small particles of rock from here, there and everywhere, which means those particles could vary greatly in age. So how can the age of the sedimentary rock that fossils are found in be determined with any accuracy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.1 |
Read a book
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
But sedimentary rock consists of small particles of rock from here, there and everywhere, which means those particles could vary greatly in age. So how can the age of the sedimentary rock that fossils are found in be determined with any accuracy? I already explained that directly to you nearly a year ago: Message 263, 11-Oct-2022 7:42 PM. You even thanked me for the information (Message 264) which led to further discussion (ie, actual discussion, a rarity with you). So here it is AGAIN! From Message 263:
dwise1 writes:
Then from the subsequent discussion, in Message 270:
dwise1 writes: Dredge writes: Furthermore, I imagine sedimentary rock could contain a mish-mash of particles of vastly varying ages - ... Correct in general, but there's are a few things to keep in mind. BTW, the next thing you wrote alerted me to the need for the following:
So then, yes, the ages of individual particles within a sedimentary layer would be a vastly varying mish-mash. But we do know that all those ages have to be greater than the age of the new layer composed of those particles. Often vastly older.
BTW, a few decades ago I had the same question, so I looked into it and did a little research. That was all it took to answer my own question, by learning. I even told you about that too in Message 265:
dwise1 writes: It's all common knowledge. Plus things that one can work out based on how things work. Or asking the right questions and then researching for the answer. Anybody who has given it any serious thought would have come up with the same. For example, while driving up to Lake Arrowhead (going from an elevation of 100 ft to one mile) for a father-son event, I was regarding the exposed roadside geology on display when a question occurred to me:
Since sedimentary layers (of which I was seeing a lot) consists of older rock that had been ground up and recycled, exactly how are they dated? I mean, if you date them directly, then you should get a much older age because they consist of much older rock, right?
Since at that time (1994) we were just beginning to get access to the Internet, we didn't have the online resources yet, so I hit the university library. That is when I learned about the use of igneous layers and intrusions as "tie points". The purpose of questions is to point us to the direction for finding the answer. And in science the best thing you can find in that answer is more questions. That way, we find paths to keep learning. Using questions in order to intimidate or prevent discussion or to otherwise weaponize them is a serious abuse. That is how creationists typically abuse questions. So sad that you are incapable of learning on your own. But at least you are starting to ask some of the right questions, though sadly it's undoubtedly solely for your trolling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Creationism: ask => answered => forget => repeat
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Creationism: ask => answered => forget => repeat It's not just forgetfulness, but rather a feature of creationism. Creationism (ie, the anti-evolution movement that uses lies and deception in a vain attempt to disprove reality) is far more than just a collection of false claims. Rather, it is a set of positions and fundamental assertions and assumptions which must remain true or else the entire position (and the follower's faith) will collapse. Of course, those fundamental assertions et alia are not true, so creationists are forever in peril, making them all the more desperate. One of those fundamental assertions is that scientists are idiots who don't know what they are doing and who adhere dogmatically to flimsy assumptions. We see this all the time in their "challenges" and "exposés" of dating methods, et alia. And it is very telling that their "questions" require extensive training and intimate familiarity with current research to be able to answer, and yet they always direct those questions to rank laymen, to the "man on the street", who would possess neither the requisite training nor experience. Their goal of deceiving their opponents and audience is blatantly obvious. Why not approach actual scientists with their "questions"? Because scientists would immediately recognize them as bullshit. For example, in the early 1970's Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research gave a presentation at the US Geological Survey (details in the Foreword of Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth). That presentation led to a lot of lively responses which consisted mainly of trying to explain to the creationists what they were misunderstanding about thermodynamics. You cannot say that creationists never learn: they learned to avoid ever talking with scientists again. The fundamental position here is their assertion that "no scientist has ever been able to answer these questions." Even after being presented with those "non-existent answers", the creationist is left with either ignoring the answers, discounting them, or simply turn around and forget them. We have seen a lot of that! I think that Dredge's question is one that he has in stock to baffle the opposition (ie, man on the street) with and it would work against most. But this forum has a lot of shared experience with creationist claims, so we're not the usual civilians that he has grown to expect. He may have had an honest question there, but experience has taught us to suspect that assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for the information u supplied on dating sedimentary rock.
unwise1 writes:
Yes it is ... but what do u expect from an idiot with an IQ of only 9?
So sad that you are incapable of learning on your own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Dredge writes: Yes it is ... but what do u expect from an idiot with an IQ of only 9? Obviously untrue. You're using deflection to avoid answering the question. To expand the question a bit, why can't you investigate and inform yourself on an issue before raising it here, and why do you repeatedly ask questions that have already been answered? Why not engage and challenge the answers? Who knows whether it will be a week, a month or a year, but eventually you will again ask the question that dwise1 answered in Message 1492. You thanked him for it while not making any comment or asking any questions whatsoever on the information itself. It's not that you're incapable of learning. It's that you have a way of seeing the world that requires a studied ignorance in order to survive. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
To expand the question a bit, why can't you investigate and inform yourself on an issue before raising it here, and why do you repeatedly ask questions that have already been answered? Why not engage and challenge the answers? For the same reason that no creationist ever does: They do not expect any answer and indeed depend on not receiving any answer. It is an integral part of their modulus operandi. Their "questions" are meant to be unanswerable. In 1970, hitting your opponent or intended victim with unanswerable questions was an integral part of the Jesus Freak training materials for proselytizing and it still serves in that role. Hit your victim with a question that he cannot answer is intended to weaken him, make him doubt his own position, and soften him up for conversion. In the case of a opponent, the intent is to discredit him in front of an audience whom you would hope to convert later in a mopping-up operation. Or at the very least, use that tactic to bolster the false beliefs of your fellow fundies and creationists. Not only is an actual answer to your question the last thing you would expect, but it would also neutralize your argument. And of course it doesn't help that you yourself have no clue what your question is about, so when your opponent/intended victim then wants to discuss your question, you are completely unable to comply. Supporting my thesis is the simple direct observation that they always direct their unanswerable questions to the wrong audience for an answer. If they actually wanted an answer to a question, then they would have asked an expert on that subject. Instead, they do everything they can to avoid any expert. Another example of creationists always asking the wrong people was local YEC activist Bill Morgan's use of a claim involving the depletion of the ozone layer (see my page about our email exchange, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER). This one is curious and telling in that it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, but rather is a naked attack on science and the integrity of scientists (much like candle2's recent rants about "scientific hoaxes" PRATTs) claiming that scientists based their blaming refrigerants in the upper atmosphere solely on lab experiments when in reality it was the use of sounding rockets gathering air samples directly from the upper atmosphere that contained those refrigerant molecules. The claim came with a set of questions "that scientists could not answer", but those questions appear verbatim from a NOAA study which also answered every single one, as I describe on my web page. In his telling of the claim, Morgan took those questions directly to "the experts on atmospheric dynamics", air conditioning salesmen at a trade show (I shit thee not!). Of course they couldn't answer his question, which would not have been the case had he gone to actual atmospheric scientists, but if he had then they would have also informed him of what utter bullshit his claim was. That same lesson was learned by Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish as I recounted in my Message 80 (20-Apr-2022):
dwise1 writes: In the foreword to his book on dating methods, The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple, research geologist at the United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, tells the story of when leading ICR creationists Drs. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering) and Duane Gish (PhD Biochemistry) came to USGS Menlo Park in 1975 to give an evening seminar on their case for creationism to several hundred USGS scientists. Their presentation sparked a lot of discussion, most of which consisted of scientists who did understand the science trying to explain to Morris & Gish what thermodynamics really is and to help correct Morris & Gish's gross misunderstanding of the subject. Morris & Gish did learn from that encounter, but it was the wrong lesson: after that ICR creationists knew better than to ever discuss anything with actual scientists. Obviously, since actual scientists understand the science then they can see through creationist bullshit lies immediately. If Dredge had actually wanted to learn something by getting an actual answer to his question, then he would have sought out an expert instead of only tossing it out in a forum. He didn't do so, so he didn't want to. And when he did get an answer, he didn't know what to do except to become obsequious (ie, turn to fawning behavior) in an effort to disengage by "smiling me out the door" only to repeat his misconduct later on when he thought I wasn't looking and the rest of us had forgotten that his "question" had already been answered and acknowledged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
dwise1 writes: Their presentation sparked a lot of discussion, most of which consisted of scientists who did understand the science trying to explain to Morris & Gish what thermodynamics really is and to help correct Morris & Gish's gross misunderstanding of the subject. Morris & Gish did learn from that encounter, but it was the wrong lesson: after that ICR creationists knew better than to ever discuss anything with actual scientists. Obviously, since actual scientists understand the science then they can see through creationist bullshit lies immediately. This implies a self-honesty they do not possess. What they actually believed was that scientists were already so miseducated that they were a lost cause and that it was far better to focus on laypeople so they could be properly educated. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024