Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (9005 total)
59 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Tangle (6 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,059 Year: 12,807/23,288 Month: 532/1,527 Week: 211/207 Day: 33/39 Hour: 4/5

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(3)
Message 12 of 207 (730338)
06-27-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-27-2014 11:50 AM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Faith writes:

If the earth really is only 6000 years old, and there was a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago, what would that do to your dating methods?


If the cart was in front of the horse it would tend to jackknife.

If the dating methods (dozens of them) were all wrong, then the science behind them would also be wrong. Chemistry and physics would be out the window.

You really can't cherry-pick the parts of science you want to reject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 11:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 25 of 207 (730351)
06-27-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:12 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
faith writes:

No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it.


We all did the experiment when we were eight years old: a handful of dirt in a jar, fill it with water, shake and let it settle. It proves that all of the strata we observe could not be deposited in one event. Sequences of strata sorted by density require sequences of events. The flood scenario doesn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:27 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 34 of 207 (730360)
06-27-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:27 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Faith writes:

But this has been said a million times already.


Yes, and you've been shown where you are wrong every time. If a flood can produce the layers we see, creationists should be able to do an experiment to replicate the layers. Why don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 68 of 207 (733348)
07-16-2014 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:31 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
mram10 writes:

There are not many TRUE scientists that seek truth. As you have seen here, true science is discouraged if you disagree.


That's false.

Science depends entirely on disagreement. Scientists try to falsify their own hypotheses - if they don't, somebody else might do it for them and make them look bad.

mram10 writes:

I have many questions that have not been logically explained by secular science.


I would suggest that all of your questions have been answered many times; you just don't know the answers yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:31 AM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:21 AM ringo has responded
 Message 197 by Phat, posted 05-09-2018 11:11 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 85 of 207 (733456)
07-17-2014 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:21 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
mram10 writes:

I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed....


The information on Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man is readily available on the Internet. Only the most ignorant of the ignorant creationists use them as examples any more.

mram10 writes:

Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment.


Well, nobody but a creationist makes a distinction between macro and micro. There's no reason to.

mram10 writes:

Again, there are very few TRUE scientists in MY EXPERIENCE.


Talking about "true" scientists is another giveaway. The real true scientists are the ones who do science. The people creationists call TRUE scientists are not.

FYI, we have a member in this very thread who uses radiometric dating in his daily work. You might do well to ask questions about how it works before you start questioning its validity or its conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:21 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 07-17-2014 12:18 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2014 12:29 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 88 of 207 (733461)
07-17-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by New Cat's Eye
07-17-2014 12:29 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Catholic Scientist writes:

The college textbook that we used for the course I took on human evolution distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution.


I'm trying to think of a way to rephrase. Hmm....

How about: Nobody but a creationist thinks there's a fundamental difference between micro and macro.

For example, nobody thinks there's a fundamental difference between a driveway and a highway but most people would agree that there's a difference in scale.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2014 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2014 12:44 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 99 by Taq, posted 07-17-2014 5:38 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 95 of 207 (733492)
07-17-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
07-17-2014 3:45 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
NoNukes writes:

Creationist insist that micro-evolution is evolution from wolves to dogs, however slow, and does occur, while macro-evolution is evolution of say a land animal-kind to a whaley-kind, and cannot occur cause you did not see it.


Nobody saw the wolves to dogs evolution either, so they're shooting themsleves in the foot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2014 3:45 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18753
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 198 of 207 (832760)
05-09-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Phat
05-09-2018 11:11 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
Phat writes:

Well we all disagree a lot around here. Maybe that makes us all scientists~!


No, it isn't the disagreement that makes science. It's trying to figure out which side of the disagreement - if either - is correct.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Phat, posted 05-09-2018 11:11 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020