Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Dating Methods For A Young Earth


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#101 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2015 - 06:49 AM

The closest anyone has come is Indy with C14 which dates objects (not the Earth) to over 50,000 years.  Since it is entirely possible the Earth is older than this, it can only establish a minimum age.

 

Your "debunking" was debunked back in post #71.

 

Well, that's a completely different matter....  Frankly, if Ludlow thinks he's doing so well, he should invite his "buddies" to join in.

 

I meant this

 

http://evolutionfair...trees/?p=123161

When you have trees that are apparently "millions of years" old yet haven't fossilized it should ring some alarm bells as to whether the age given was accurate..



#102 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 August 2015 - 01:34 PM

Your "debunking" was debunked back in post #71.

Fair enough... I was talking about your post #65 in this discussion .... I wasn't following the other one.

 

When you have trees that are apparently "millions of years" old yet haven't fossilized it should ring some alarm bells as to whether the age given was accurate..

Could those trees have been preserved by mummification?  As I have pointed out to Indy (dozens of times) the state of biological decay isn't exactly a very good yard stick for establishing age.

 

That said..... we can discard radioisotope dating.  After all, I have frequently pointed out that it has a number of problems.  We can use something a lot less subject to minor fluctuations; much less subject to sample selection issues; processing problems; detection limits; and many of the other issues associated with radiometric dating.  This time of year, we can just walk out back and observe the Milky Way.  Virtually every one of those stars in that light band across the (summer) night sky is well beyond the 6,000 year event horizon that should be expected in a universe only thousands of years old as YEC claim.  In the winter, we can use the galaxy Andromeda (distance 2.4 million light years) as an example.

 

Used as a "dating method" our ability to directly observe objects billions of light years from Earth indicates an age of billions of years for the universe. 

 

(Note:  YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner has correctly pointed out that the YEC "event horizon" problem doesn't begin at 6,000 light years.  It begins at two light days as Adam would have been able to see the stars on day 6 after they were created on day 4.  Even the closest star (other than our Sun, of course) is 4.3 light years from Earth.)



#103 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:54 PM

Fair enough... I was talking about your post #65 in this discussion .... I wasn't following the other one.

 

Could those trees have been preserved by mummification?  As I have pointed out to Indy (dozens of times) the state of biological decay isn't exactly a very good yard stick for establishing age.

 

Does mummification lead to only a 1% petrification of wood after supposedly "millions" of years when it should be around 100%?

Or perhaps are those ages assigned to the wood just plain wrong... Following Ockams Razor would mean its wrong, since that leads to the least number of assumptions.

 

That said..... we can discard radioisotope dating.  After all, I have frequently pointed out that it has a number of problems.  We can use something a lot less subject to minor fluctuations; much less subject to sample selection issues; processing problems; detection limits; and many of the other issues associated with radiometric dating.  This time of year, we can just walk out back and observe the Milky Way.  Virtually every one of those stars in that light band across the (summer) night sky is well beyond the 6,000 year event horizon that should be expected in a universe only thousands of years old as YEC claim.  In the winter, we can use the galaxy Andromeda (distance 2.4 million light years) as an example.

 

Used as a "dating method" our ability to directly observe objects billions of light years from Earth indicates an age of billions of years for the universe. 

 

(Note:  YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner has correctly pointed out that the YEC "event horizon" problem doesn't begin at 6,000 light years.  It begins at two light days as Adam would have been able to see the stars on day 6 after they were created on day 4.  Even the closest star (other than our Sun, of course) is 4.3 light years from Earth.)

 

That was what I was saying.
 

Also you've debunked Bill's prior claims that this process was "scientific" since if the process is liable to be wrong, how can it be deemed "scientific", (though when one considers that such isn't an experiment we should wonder how can ANY dating process be deemed scientific?)



#104 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 August 2015 - 06:30 AM

The instant you introduce supernatural acts by a supernatural God, you have departed from the scientific discussion.

 

 

Disgusting.That means we cannot discuss creation itself because creation was a supernatural act. We therefore cannot discuss the creation of woman from Adam because that was a supernatural act. Moses statement in the Ten Commandments "For in six days the LORD made the heaven and  earth, the sea and all that in them is..." Exodus 20:11 cannot be discussed because that affirms a supernatural act.

 

We cannot therefore discuss the world-wide flood because that was a supernatural act and therefore, (according to him) it is not scientific. I pointed out to him more than once that SCIENCE is the realm of God and the very word means literally 'knowledge'. God's Word is knowledge and therefore it is scientific by its very essence. But being brainwashed like he is by neo-Darwinian dogma it is purely a waste of time to try to communicate with him. From my perspective, he has been here long enough and been corrected countless times by those who know what they're talking about but he clings to his fantasy no matter what is laid before him.

 

Brethren, this is the bottom line of the reason I WILL NOT debate that fellow. He has always treated God's Word like it's a fairy tale as far as the history of the origins of our world and man in it. For the rest of you who wish to engage him, at your own discretion.  

 

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7



#105 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 August 2015 - 01:11 PM

The instant you introduce supernatural acts by a supernatural God, you have departed from the scientific discussion. 

 

Disgusting.That means we cannot discuss creation itself because creation was a supernatural act. We therefore cannot discuss the creation of woman from Adam because that was a supernatural act. Moses statement in the Ten Commandments "For in six days the LORD made the heaven and  earth, the sea and all that in them is..." Exodus 20:11 cannot be discussed because that affirms a supernatural act.

 

We cannot therefore discuss the world-wide flood because that was a supernatural act and therefore, (according to him) it is not scientific. I pointed out to him more than once that SCIENCE is the realm of God and the very word means literally 'knowledge'. God's Word is knowledge and therefore it is scientific by its very essence. But being brainwashed like he is by neo-Darwinian dogma it is purely a waste of time to try to communicate with him. From my perspective, he has been here long enough and been corrected countless times by those who know what they're talking about but he clings to his fantasy no matter what is laid before him.

I keep forgetting Calypsis is an ultra-literalist in all things.  For that reason, it is necessary to point out to him .... repeatedly ..... that we are speaking of the NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences.  We call them "natural" and "physical" for a reason.... one that Calypsis inexplicably cannot seem to understand despite his claimed quarter century career as a science teacher.

 

NATURAL science deals with that which is NATURAL.  Hence "NATURAL science" is all about knowledge of the natural.  In a similar vein,  PHYSICAL science deals with that that is PHYSICAL.  Hence "PHYSICAL science" is all about knowledge that which is physical.   These sciences rely on the constancy of natural law.  When God chooses to suspend natural law and perform a Supernatural act, He is operating outside the restrictions of the NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences.

 

It's not that we can't discuss supernatural acts.  It's just that miracles cannot be investigated within the limitations of physics, chemistry, or biology.  Perhaps with his vast experience as a teacher, Calypsis can produce just ONE equation in physics that includes a "God factor."

 

Calypsis doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between the supernatural / metaphysical / philosophical / theological forms of knowledge and the physical / natural realm of knowledge.  His narrow-mindedness and inability to deal with even the simplest of calculations is not my problem.



#106 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 30 August 2015 - 04:01 PM

I keep forgetting Calypsis is an ultra-literalist in all things.  For that reason, it is necessary to point out to him .... repeatedly ..... that we are speaking of the NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences.  We call them "natural" and "physical" for a reason.... one that Calypsis inexplicably cannot seem to understand despite his claimed quarter century career as a science teacher.

 

NATURAL science deals with that which is NATURAL.  Hence "NATURAL science" is all about knowledge of the natural.  In a similar vein,  PHYSICAL science deals with that that is PHYSICAL.  Hence "PHYSICAL science" is all about knowledge that which is physical.   These sciences rely on the constancy of natural law.  When God chooses to suspend natural law and perform a Supernatural act, He is operating outside the restrictions of the NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences.

 

It's not that we can't discuss supernatural acts.  It's just that miracles cannot be investigated within the limitations of physics, chemistry, or biology.  Perhaps with his vast experience as a teacher, Calypsis can produce just ONE equation in physics that includes a "God factor."

 

Calypsis doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between the supernatural / metaphysical / philosophical / theological forms of knowledge and the physical / natural realm of knowledge.  His narrow-mindedness and inability to deal with even the simplest of calculations is not my problem.

 

Pi, can you give a consistent, unambiguous definition of NATURAL? I've used this illustration before, and I'll use it here again. Is the proposition of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? Right out of the starting gate it meets the criteria for being a PHYSICAL process. You have a man, you have water, both PHYSICAL entities. But is the process of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? If so, how so? If not, why not?

 

And here is the point. Whether you claim it to be NATURAL (and I would be scratching my head if you did), or, as most people would do, claim it would be an UNNATURAL occurrence because it appears to contradict Archimedes' principle of fluid displacement (not the law of gravity as some would mistakenly assume), something you can EXPERIMENTALLY verify over and over again, do you also apply this same definition of NATURAL to claims of universal common descent, Big Bang cosmology, the origin of the solar system, etc.?

 

Is investigating whether a man walked on the water within the purview of science? Or is it beyond the scope of science, and a matter of HISTORICAL evidence.



#107 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 August 2015 - 05:08 PM

Bonedigger:

Pi, can you give a consistent, unambiguous definition of NATURAL? I've used this illustration before, and I'll use it here again. Is the proposition of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? Right out of the starting gate it meets the criteria for being a PHYSICAL process. You have a man, you have water, both PHYSICAL entities. But is the process of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? If so, how so? If not, why not?

 

And here is the point. Whether you claim it to be NATURAL (and I would be scratching my head if you did), or, as most people would do, claim it would be an UNNATURAL occurrence because it appears to contradict

 it is necessary to point out to him .... repeatedly ..... that we are speaking of the NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences."

 

 

 

No, no! HE is speaking of the natural and physical sciences. We never agreed to limit ourselves in such mode of thinking. There is no rule on the EFF board that says we must not talk about the supernatural. He has his own made-up rule and he expects us to abide by his mentally conditioned attitude to leave out the supernatural.  BUT...the supernatural repeatedly affects the natural world and has since the time of the creation. There are hundreds of them in the scripture and I and my companions have experienced quite a few things that could not be explained by natural processes. So, nothing doing. He doesn't make the rules here and we are not going to leave out the miraculous just because he can't comprehend how the supernatural fits into his 'science'. That's his problem, not ours.

 

3. He said,


"one that Calypsis inexplicably cannot seem to understand despite his claimed quarter century career as a science teacher."

 

 

 

But again, he is the one with the problem about the essence of the natural & its relation to the supernatural. Modern neo-Darwinian thought dominates his mind and not the Word of God.

 

As far as my credentials are concerned": What must I do? Post a copy of my college degree on EFF? Shall I request some of my graduates to verify my teaching background? I can do that easily. But even if I did so he could just as easily claim that I faked the documents, faked the testimony by writing it myself, etc. So why bother since he doesn't believe much of anything else I say, anyway?

 

But for you to know my educational background: Northwest Classen, Indiana State University, Bob Jones University, and Hyles Anderson College. I have a degree in Secondary Education (1981) and I also am a graduate of U.S. Naval Corps School in Great Lakes, IL (1970). I taught science, history, biology, physical science, and one year of physics  in a span of 26 yrs. One of my daughters (whom I personally tutored) is now a PhD in medicine & she is now with her husband, a doctor in residency at Johns Hopkins University. Another daughter has two degrees from NMC and now serves on the college staff of that same college. I can prove all of this but I will only do so for my fellow companions who have stood with me here on EFF. What the skeptics may think about my background is really of no interest to me. It wouldn't matter to them if I were a graduate of Harvard with a doctorate from Oxford. Not in the slightest

 

He said,


"Perhaps with his vast experience as a teacher, Calypsis can produce just ONE equation in physics that includes a "God factor."

 

 

 

 

Did I ever use the word 'vast' in anything I ever said about my education? Nope. But it isn't hard to see his contempt for me.

 

But here is the equation.  1³=G

 

Those who wish to know what this means can contact me by PM. 

 

I have made statements concerning pi that he has been educationallly Orwellianized. In that ....I am a strict literalist because I see the signs of that mental conditioning in his posts repeatedly, even profusely. Example; (right there in his own post).

 

 


Calypsis doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between the supernatural / metaphysical / philosophical / theological forms of knowledge and the physical / natural realm of knowledge. 

 

 

 

 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle 'black'? Imagine the kind of problems that the piasan's of the world are going to have during the coming tribulation when the natural and supernatural world are blended together on a daily or weekly basis? Those demonic scorpian-like beings that will come out of the bottomless pit during that age will not care if 'professor so & so' doesn't believe in their literal existnce. They will torment them repeatedly for five whole (literal) months.

 

Thanks.

 

P.S. sorry about the technical problem with the underlining. I tried to correct it and failed.



#108 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 August 2015 - 05:41 PM

Disgusting.That means we cannot discuss creation itself because creation was a supernatural act.

Now Cal why did you have to pop the atheist's "something from nothing" bubble like that?

Can't you just allow them to believe such thoughts no matter how irrational they are? ;)


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#109 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 September 2015 - 12:53 AM

Note:   I think something in Bonedigger's post is causing the underline problem.

Pi, can you give a consistent, unambiguous definition of NATURAL? I've used this illustration before, and I'll use it here again. Is the proposition of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? Right out of the starting gate it meets the criteria for being a PHYSICAL process. You have a man, you have water, both PHYSICAL entities. But is the process of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? If so, how so? If not, why not?

 

And here is the point. Whether you claim it to be NATURAL (and I would be scratching my head if you did), or, as most people would do, claim it would be an UNNATURAL occurrence because it appears to contradict Archimedes' principle of fluid displacement (not the law of gravity as some would mistakenly assume), something you can EXPERIMENTALLY verify over and over again, do you also apply this same definition of NATURAL to claims of universal common descent, Big Bang cosmology, the origin of the solar system, etc.?

 

Is investigating whether a man walked on the water within the purview of science? Or is it beyond the scope of science, and a matter of HISTORICAL evidence.

I left the original post intact so BD could see the problem.

 

With regard to the definition of "NATURAL" .... It's pretty hard to find one that doesn't get circular pretty quickly.  The first thing I thought of was "in accordance with natural law."    I finally found this one:

a :  having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>
 

b :  of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>

(Source: http://www.merriam-w...tionary/natural )

 

Note:  Inserting the link cleared up the formatting problem.

 

A man walking on water would not be a natural event because, as you point out, it would violate Archimedes principle.  However, I would not hold such an event to be "UNnatural" so much as "SUPERnatural."

 

An investigation could be within the purview of science, and I'm pretty sure it would conclude men cannot walk on water due to the density and buoyancy issues. This is why supernatural acts are beyond the limits of scientific investigation. 

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users