Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
38 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,480 Year: 5,228/23,288 Month: 349/1,784 Week: 236/211 Day: 3/81 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 5 of 200 (730328)
06-27-2014 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
06-27-2014 9:52 AM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Not interested in discussing this right now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 9:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 11:38 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 200 (730333)
06-27-2014 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by JonF
06-27-2014 11:38 AM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
I have a question for you:

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? (Since the majority of the methods can only measure enormous time spans).

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 11:38 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 06-27-2014 11:58 AM Faith has responded
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 12:13 PM Faith has responded
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-27-2014 12:15 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2014 12:19 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 200 (730336)
06-27-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
06-27-2014 11:58 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 06-27-2014 11:58 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 06-27-2014 12:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 26 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 200 (730339)
06-27-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
06-27-2014 12:13 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Leave the tree rings and varves out of this please. The subject is the radiometric dating methods. Did you really answer my question?

Say volcanism really only began on the planet at the time of the Flood. What kinds of readings would you get from your methods?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 12:13 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 12:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 200 (730342)
06-27-2014 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
06-27-2014 12:23 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 06-27-2014 12:23 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2014 12:44 PM Faith has responded
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 06-27-2014 12:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 20 of 200 (730346)
06-27-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
06-27-2014 12:56 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Yes I understand the principle involved, just wondered what it would look like in that case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 12:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2014 1:07 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 23 of 200 (730349)
06-27-2014 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
06-27-2014 12:44 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
In reality it is the Old Earth explanations that make sense and the Flood story that is ridiculous. That's why the Old Earth is accepted as scientific fact and the Flood is rejected as a myth.

No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it. You can rationalize it all in terms of the Old Earth but it's a strain on common sense, and billions of fossils is just too perfectly the result of the worldwide Flood. Not to mention the other problems I've pointed out in the GC examples. No, the OE explanations do not make sense, you're just used to them.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2014 12:44 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 06-27-2014 1:17 PM Faith has responded
 Message 28 by jar, posted 06-27-2014 1:21 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2014 1:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 200 (730357)
06-27-2014 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
06-27-2014 1:17 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Let's not get into this discussion here, but it's already been shown that Walther's law layers sediments and there would be sequences of waves and tides as well that would affect deposition. But this has been said a million times already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 06-27-2014 1:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:30 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 06-27-2014 1:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 200 (730359)
06-27-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
06-27-2014 1:25 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Note that scientists give their results with a stated uncertainty.

Sometimes. Amazing though how many Wikipedia and other general articles just rattle off a bunch of mystifying conclusions about this or that, say the KT boundary for an example without even touching on the particular phenomena involved. It's all millions of years this and assumed events that. There is NO room for uncertainty in those common presentations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:35 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 39 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:43 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 200 (730361)
06-27-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by JonF
06-27-2014 1:25 PM


Re: Faith's many errors
I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know. It was really just a bunch of vague questions I had in mind, it did not come from any creationist site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:25 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 1:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 200 (730368)
06-27-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
06-27-2014 1:43 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
No that's not the idea. They talk in terms of events as if they were facts, this happened, that happened, so many years ago. There was a meteor that killed off all the dinosaurs. Stated as fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 2:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 3:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 200 (730373)
06-27-2014 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by JonF
06-27-2014 2:59 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Sorry, this is getting confused. I'm not talking about that paper which is well enough organized and explained, I was talking about a Wikipedia article, I forget why now, about the K-T boundary as a typical example of how such phenomena are presented to laypeople. Definitely typical and definitely irritating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 06-27-2014 2:59 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2014 3:43 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 46 by jar, posted 06-27-2014 3:54 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 47 of 200 (730391)
06-27-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
06-27-2014 3:54 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
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.

Edited by Faith, : Get rid of all caps and change a couple words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 06-27-2014 3:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 06-27-2014 11:23 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:06 AM Faith has responded
 Message 56 by dwise1, posted 06-28-2014 3:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 117 by edge, posted 07-18-2014 1:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 50 of 200 (730404)
06-28-2014 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coyote
06-28-2014 12:06 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this. Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:06 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2014 2:40 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2014 6:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 200 (730406)
06-28-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
06-28-2014 12:13 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:13 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2014 12:37 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020