Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
42 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,365 Year: 11,113/23,288 Month: 365/1,763 Week: 4/328 Day: 4/49 Hour: 0/2

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
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 9 of 200 (730335)
06-27-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-27-2014 11:50 AM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
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 elephants could fly, and there was an Egyptian pyramid in south Florida, what would that do to your dating methods?

Makes about as much sense as what you propose, doesn't it?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 11:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 12:07 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 15 of 200 (730341)
06-27-2014 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
06-27-2014 12:07 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
I'd really like to know. If you're all assuming millions and billions of years and most of the dating methods are for measuring such enormous time spans, but the earth really is only 6000 years old, what kinds of results would you expect to get from your methods?

If the earth was 6,000 years old radiocarbon dating would give dates no older than 6,000 years.

And the flood would have had no effect on those ages. (The RATE group had to concede that radioactive decay has not changed in historic times.)

The problem you have is that radiocarbon dating method has been shown to be accurate, and that it shows the flood never happened and that the earth is far older than 6,000 years.

In response, you are just refusing to accept the evidence, and looking for any loophole to support your a priori beliefs. That leads you to make some very silly and uneducated claims.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 12:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 12:39 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 200 (730344)
06-27-2014 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
06-27-2014 12:39 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Yes, that is my problem all right, along with the fact that the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the strata and the fossils, and the fact that the Old Earth explanations of the strata and the fossils are just plain ridiculous, and quite a few other things.

There really is no point in discussing these things with you.

Your grasp of reality is so tenuous that you wouldn't accept a cliff even if you walked off it.

So, here's to you!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 12:39 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 49 of 200 (730403)
06-28-2014 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-27-2014 10:21 PM


Re:Libraries
It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

You can get increasing levels of detail and the reasoning behind it in libraries. The evidence for the topics we have been discussing take up whole floors of major university libraries. Feel free to access that information to the level you desire.

So don't moan that the information presented to the public doesn't contain the detail of a Ph.D. dissertation.

But I fail to see why you should care--you don't rely on evidence anyway.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:09 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 51 of 200 (730405)
06-28-2014 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:09 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

And TRUE (or TRVE) science is what creationists say it is?

What a joke!

I've advised you before, stay far away from science. You simply aren't qualified.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:17 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 53 of 200 (730407)
06-28-2014 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:17 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
You don't know one thing about what I'm qualified for. The only thing I've ever objected to is the HISTORICAL sciences. Get a clue.

Not so, we know exactly what you are qualified for--by reading hundreds of your posts.

You feel you can pick and choose among various fields all of which use the scientific method based on whether or not you like the results.

And your posts are a horrible mix of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, denial, obfuscation, and anti-science mumbo-jumbo, mixed liberally with things you just make up. Collectively, your posts are just about the opposite of what science really is.

I'd sooner discuss science with a first grader--at least they are capable of learning.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 1:38 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 67 of 200 (733342)
07-16-2014 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:31 AM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
But, what do I know? I only have a few posts, which shows I am new to this whole "science" thing

Welcome!

You have come to the right place, as a number of us are very familiar with science.

If you have questions about radiocarbon dating, please let me know and I'll try to answer them.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 71 of 200 (733393)
07-16-2014 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Taq
07-16-2014 9:43 PM


Re: How do creationists explain these correlations?
I would love to see someone who discounts radiometric dating to explain how it is possible to get such consistent results.

1. They claim there is a difference between "true" science and those "other" sciences.

2. They refuse to accept the consistent results no matter what the evidence.

3. They claim that radiometric dating is based on assumptions as if that was an automatic disqualification. Finally, they ask...

4. "Were you there?" As if that was a valid challenge to huge amounts of evidence.

In other words, all they need to do is fool themselves, which is apparently surprisingly easy for them to do.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 07-16-2014 9:43 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 76 of 200 (733409)
07-17-2014 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by mram10
07-17-2014 12:31 AM


The RATE study
You have mentioned the RATE study several times. Here are several reviews of that study:

Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
https://www.softwaremonkey.org/RTB/newsletter/2007-07.pdf Part 1
https://www.softwaremonkey.org/RTB/newsletter/2007-08.pdf Part 2

RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by Kirk Bertsche:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm

A Dialogue about RATE:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.htm

From the first of these reviews:

The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as “groundbreaking results.” This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.

In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.

I think if I were you I'd be hesitant to put too much reliance on the claims made about this study, and read carefully what they actually found.

They spent over a million dollars of creationist money and found that science was correct all along--and then refused to accept their own findings.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 12:31 AM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 102 of 200 (733523)
07-17-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mram10
07-17-2014 8:44 PM


Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.

The main finding made by the RATE boys is that scientists were right about radiometric dating.

They refused to believe it, of course.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 8:44 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 109 of 200 (733536)
07-17-2014 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:21 PM


Re: the RATE study
The point is there was interesting data that came from their work.

The data that came from their work supported what science has found. Their interpretation of that data was that the bible was right all along. You clearly are avoiding their actual data and going with their interpretation. Perhaps you should become familiar with their actual data?

Many here are spring loaded to anything that might go against what they learned in school. Get used to it. Science books in school said numerous things that have been proven false since.

We know that. I wouldn't doubt that some here have helped to prove things in old textbooks false.

If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.

To turn this around, if you can't follow the data where it leads you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist. And we have seen that creationists like data about as much as vampires like garlic. Creationists typically ignore, misrepresent, or obfuscate any data that gets in the way of their chosen beliefs. So no, we don't look to creationists to tell us how to do science.

For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it

The topic is the validity of radiometric dating. So far you have offered no evidence that radiometric dating is not accurate. Don't you think it is about time you tried to do so?

One of my special areas is radiocarbon dating. A couple of other posters here are very familiar with that as well. Care to present your evidence that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:21 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 688 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 155 of 200 (759899)
06-15-2015 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 5:48 PM


Radiocarbon dating
This thread is about the validity of evolutionary timeframes, (radiometric dating).

Creationists' claims about the validity of radiocarbon dating have been shown to be unfounded.

We have tree-ring sequences in a couple of areas that go back beyond the young-earth claims, and other annular data (corals, ice cores, lake cores, speleothems, etc.) that go back even farther--and all of the various annular data, relying on vastly different materials, are in close agreement.

Right there we have solid evidence that radiocarbon dating in particular and radiometric dating in general are accurate, and that creationists and their faith-based claims are inaccurate.

So why do you keep trying to pretend this is not the case?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 5:48 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by mikechell, posted 06-16-2015 10:43 AM Coyote 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