Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
85 online now:
(85 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,645 Year: 5,291/14,102 Month: 212/677 Week: 17/54 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The dating game
Member (Idle past 1156 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007

Message 77 of 94 (417205)
08-19-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 8:18 PM

Re: Question,
Response 1. Is a red herring. The method of dating isn't in question. The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.

Is your typo intentional or accidental? Your article reference said "thousands", not "millions" (we don't have ice core sequences in the millions of years).

But your creationwiki article gives no evidence even of thousands. It talks about thicknesses, and implies that this must equate to thousands of years. The thickness of these layers gets thinner and thinner as one goes down due to the increasing pressure.

I think your YEC article is making an unwarranted uniformitarian assumption that the relation of ice thickness to time span is constant. It is not.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 8:18 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 1156 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007

Message 78 of 94 (417208)
08-19-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
08-19-2007 7:31 PM

Re: Question,
Vashgun writes:

uniformitarianism has been verified? Stop the presses! I'd like to see the article on that. You really like saying science. It's like your religious mantra. Because if SCIENCE says it! What science? Science is your god and idol. lol


How does uniformitarianism not apply to this thread? We are talking about dating, so the fundemental aspect of radiometric dating is based on a religious worldview. Your religiousity scares me.

There's a LOT of confusion here.

1) "Uniformitarianism" vs "catastrophism" was a valid historical debate a century or so ago, restricted to discussions of geological processes. Uniformitarianism initially won out, but the modern picture is a combination of both. The impact event that killed the dinosaurs is an example. David Raup wrote a nice popular level book on this a few years back (Maybe The Nemesis Affair?). But this has little to do with modern dating methods. In fact, modern dating methods make the discussion moot because their dates do not depend on the rates of geological processes.
Note: the YEC application of "uniformitarianism" to all of science is just plain wrong. For most areas of science the term is irrelevant.

2) Radiocarbon was initially based on "uniformitarian" assumptions (decay rate is constant, natural abundance ratio in upper atmosphere is constant). Further research has verified the first assumption, and given minor corrections to the second. Calibrating to tree ring dates avoids these uniformitarian assumptions, BTW.

3) One's "uniformitarian philosophy" or religion does not change the facts or reliability of the dating methods.

4) Some of the early developers of radiocarbon dating were evangelical Christians. They did not treat science as their god or idol.

Edited by kbertsche, : clarified point 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 08-19-2007 7:31 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021