Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#81 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:35 AM

 

 

Driewerf: Until now you have just made bare assertions.

 

Tu quoque fallacy. You're saying this because I genuinely am correct that all you provide is bare assertions, or generally that is what your posts consist of.

 

In fact I created a post and gave a link to AIG which you never read, and I quoted their explanation of the evidence. So it isn't that I was making a bare assertion, it's in fact that you haven't read all of my posts properly.

 

My evidence the islands grown? Is this realistic? I assume you believe that some time in the past under evolutionary belief, mountains grown, and all manner of geological features? So then is it not reasonable to say that everyone in this thread would believe that somehow mountains and islands form? Volcanic islands form, from volcanoes, Driewerf, even under evolutionary belief, unless you believe they come as Christmas gifts and are guided into place by reindeer?

 

This following quote is from google;

 

 

 

Volcanic islands are formed by volcanic activity on the seabed, often near the boundaries of the tectonic plates that form Earth's crust. Where two plates pull apart, lava erupts to form an undersea ridge. Layers of lava build up until a ridge breaks the sea's surface to form an island.

 

So i think we can agree islands form, what we dispute is when they formed, and how fast they formed. If you go back and read the AIG explanation, you will see it is an equally reasonable hypothesis.

 

At the very least if I am presented with a case for the forming quickly, and not long ago, and a case for slow formation over vast eons of time, why should I choose vast eons of time when the faster version seems just as reasonable?

 

Should I be adverse to a car travelling at 60mph but happy about one travelling at 80mph? Should I be speed-biased? Should I hate one and love the other?

 

You have given me no reason to reject the young version of events, other than your obvious and blatant hatred of the youth version because it doesn't favour the evolution story of atheism.



#82 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 March 2017 - 08:49 AM

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]I'm afraid this is a lie, Wibble. We have provided evidence that these islands could have formed quickly, the sizes of them making great sense if the volatile speed of the continents was slowing down giving them more time to form. The truth is you would not consider the alternative explanation of the evidence if your life depended on it.


That is not evidence, it is a preposterous claim. To shoehorn in rapid island chain formation you have to invent this unobserved and unevidenced super fast continental plate movement. On the other hand, the secular view uses observed rates of consistent (not slowing down) plate movement for which we do have an understood mechanism (mantle convection) that is also consistent with observed subsidence rates and with the island erosional sequence (which is still being ignored). And just so happens to fit nicely with radiometric ages (a method proven wrong you say ? Stop deluding yourself)

I will ask you again, if the whole chain was formed rapidly due to catastrophic plate tectonics how was there enough time for a reef to form (or even an opportunity to get started in such turbulent seas) and then be drowned as is the case with the northern seamounts ? Are you going to give me a straightforward, clear answer on this or not ?



#83 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 March 2017 - 10:52 AM

 

 

Wibble: I will ask you again, if the whole chain was formed rapidly due to catastrophic plate tectonics how was there enough time for a reef to form (or even an opportunity to get started in such turbulent seas) and then be drowned as is the case with the northern seamounts ? Are you going to give me a straightforward, clear answer on this or not ?

 

 I did, several times, I pointed out the critical thinking behind such things - that a reef doesn't prove the age of an island anymore than your socks prove your age. I also gave you this;

 

 

A coral reef is the mass of limestone created as the polyps build their skeletons. How long it takes these reefs to form is a matter of conjecture.

It is commonly believed the existence of thick coral reefs proves the Earth must be millions of years old, based on the assumption that coral growth was slow.

However, the discovery in 1992 of this substantial wad of coral growing firmly attached to a modern shoe (less than four years old at the time) in waters off the Philippines is just one indicator among many that this is not the case.1

Marine biologists have discovered that coral contains growth rings, like those of a tree. A study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science has found a connection between coral growth rates and seasonal freshwater run-off or floods from nearby land.2

From strongly correlated historical records of river run-off and flooding, the researchers determined that the coral colony in question had taken only 118 years to grow 1.8 m (6 ft). This gave them a new method for determining the age of all reefs that make up Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Based on this methodology, the outer barrier reefs (those furthest from the Australian coast and in the deepest water), which are about 55 m (180 ft) thick, would be less than 3,700 years old—not millions of years old as has been believed.

 

Wibble, in debate your style is to constantly repeat, repeat, repeat, question, question, question, but look at all the effort I put in to my posts. Did you answer my questions? No. Did you try to understand the critical thinking behind these issues? No.

 

This is the element that is missing in your thinking. I simply state that as a fact.

 

You aren't willing to do any logic.

 

What specifically, are we determining the age of, and how is this relevant to ideologies?

 

1. Will evidence of old rock, as an induction, even compelling, correlations etc...prove age when competing with competing inductions of youth? No, that is not how inductive reasoning works, unless you have a proof, which is decisive, but confirmation evidence is not decisive, no matter how impressive the induction, depending on the quality of the evidence.

 

- If the universe is old is the earth old? No - non sequitur. It can possibly be young.

- If we have evidence the earth continents are old is the earth therefore old? - non sequitur (affirmation, evidence can't be affirmed int that way, even science acknowledges it.)

If we evidence some volcanic islands are old, does this mean the earth's continents as a whole are old? - non sequitur. Firstly the evidence volcanic islands are old can't be affirmed, secondly even if you have proof they are old which you don't, it doesn't follow that life is therefore old, and all of the non-volcanic rocks. 

- If we have strong evidence the earth is old, does it follow that certain rocks are old? - non sequitur. The world can be old and the rocks young.

- If we have strong evidence that rocks are young, is the earth therefore young? - non sequitur. The world can be old and the rocks young.

 

What can we really conclude? We can conclude if we have evidence strong enough and of such quality that it is practically proof, that if we find youth in rocks that those rocks are young. That's all. If volcanic rocks are found to be old by such proof, this would only mean these particular volcanic islands formed by volcanic activity are that old, it is a non-sequitur to therefore conclude all life is the same age, as well as the continents.

 

Now I don't say this to be mean spirited, but it's clear to me from our discussions that you don't really understand how vital it is to understand these delineations. They are not technicalities, they are the difference between evaluating a matter intelligently, and stupidly. It's your choice, you can do it intelligently, or stupidly but your request for me to be stupid cannot be granted. :P

 

There is also the comparison of the two fallacies to consider, slothful induction, and the fallacy of exclusion

 

Why do those two fallacies pertain so strongly to the issue of the age of things? It would take a lot of explaining, but with the latter, it depends how strong the evidence is when excluded from the matter in hand.

 

An analogy might help to highlight how important it is to understand this fallacy. Imagine we had a ship, and we had an argument that everything on that ship as evidence, indicated it was sunk in the 1970s. Imagine I found a style of clothing on the ship, which could have been from the 80s if that piece of clothing had been kept. Imagine there were some signs of age that might show that the person wearing them had worn them for a while, perhaps into the 1980s, but you had an induction of evidence, (a tally of confirmation evidence) that all of the styles, the type of ship, and other evidences, seemed to indicate it was sunk in the 1970s.

 

Now it doesn't matter how impressive an induction is, it is still only inductive reasoning if the gap in the data remains forever open, and our knowledge will never be complete. This is why historical hypotheses are inherently tenuous. So then you can make a better case perhaps for age, but if you were to say, "we shall not consider the coins found in the captain's safe, as we should concentrate on the majority of the evidence" then you commit the fallacy of exclusion, because there is one piece of evidence, that is right - only one piece of evidence, which can turn your whole induction on it's head, and what is that evidence? It is a coin sealed in the captain's safe that has the year 1983 inscribed on it.

 

Now Wibble, I say this with all due kindness - unless you can understand such shall we say, 'acute' matters of delineation, then you're not really in a position to even understand that this matter of a few volcanic islands is quite irrelevant to the age of life on this planet, for there are several powerful evidences of young tissue, unmistakably young, which are found in rocks they have said are 65 million years old, meaning that logically, both the tissue, and the rocks the tissue was found in, having been preserved at the same time, like the coin, prove them both young.

 

Now I admit it's perhaps not as strong as, "proof" as with the coin, but whether you fight it to the grave or accept it, no matter, for both actions will not change that logically that tissue is better inferred to be young, meaning that young tissue is germane to the issue of life's age, but volcanic islands, aren't. Which means even if you had a complete victory in this thread, it would not be consequential, for if you are saying the age of volcanic islands pertain to life on earth, and it's great age, then all of your topic is one big red herring anyway. For great age of volcanic rock would not mean giraffes or dinos had to exist millions of years ago.

 

So as much as you guys think you are superior and have the victory, right now I must say that I'm, "Laughing at the 'superior' intellect." - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

 

;)

 

P.S. The forces and environmental conditions on earth at the time of the flood, equally affected all reefs, all rocks, all life, for it was worldwide. Remember this! That is why I can say, "all reefs could have aged quicker", or, "all continents would have moved faster", there would be no exceptions, unless there was some special circumstance, so it is reasonable to apply catastrophic pressures to all things on the earth, at that time.



#84 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:41 PM

 I did, several times, I pointed out the critical thinking behind such things - that a reef doesn't prove the age of an island anymore than your socks prove your age. I also gave you this;


You are misunderstanding the point. The point about the drowned reefs by itself is not so much about the age of the islands but more as a test of the veracity of 'rapid plate tectonics' compared to the mainstream view. You abide by the CMI/AIG assertion that the northern volcanoes never got near the surface because when they formed they were subject to the early rapid plate movement so didn't have time to produce enough lava to do so. Right ?

Here is a paper that reports on drowned reefs at depths of around 1500m near an eroded remnant of an island 500m northwest of Honolulu

Now, remembering that corals depend on sunlight so cannot form below about 50m or so how are there relict reefs down at this depth on volcanoes that formed rapidly after the flood ? This is why I am having to repeat myself because you are not answering these specific questions but go off on some irrelevant tangent.

 

What makes more sense of these deep corals ?

 

1) A rapidly built deep underwater volcano straight after the flood colonised by coral polyps that somehow survived the catastrophe and proliferated into a reef in total darkness

 

2) The reefs are ancient and formed millions of years ago just like the ones we see today around the southern islands but slowly sank due to subsidence, just as is measured by tidal gauges today and is expected of large volcanoes because of their large mass pressing down on the lithosphere.
 



#85 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 19 March 2017 - 07:08 AM

Can't edit the post but the 500m should read 500 miles

#86 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:41 AM

Tu quoque fallacy. You're saying this because I genuinely am correct that all you provide is bare assertions, or generally that is what your posts consist of.
 
In fact I created a post and gave a link to AIG which you never read, and I quoted their explanation of the evidence. So it isn't that I was making a bare assertion, it's in fact that you haven't read all of my posts properly.
 
My evidence the islands grown? Is this realistic? I assume you believe that some time in the past under evolutionary belief, mountains grown, and all manner of geological features? So then is it not reasonable to say that everyone in this thread would believe that somehow mountains and islands form? Volcanic islands form, from volcanoes, Driewerf, even under evolutionary belief, unless you believe they come as Christmas gifts and are guided into place by reindeer?
 
This following quote is from google;
 
 
So i think we can agree islands form, what we dispute is when they formed, and how fast they formed. If you go back and read the AIG explanation, you will see it is an equally reasonable hypothesis.
 
At the very least if I am presented with a case for the forming quickly, and not long ago, and a case for slow formation over vast eons of time, why should I choose vast eons of time when the faster version seems just as reasonable?
 
Should I be adverse to a car travelling at 60mph but happy about one travelling at 80mph? Should I be speed-biased? Should I hate one and love the other?
 
You have given me no reason to reject the young version of events, other than your obvious and blatant hatred of the youth version because it doesn't favour the evolution story of atheism.


How, Mike the Wiz. My entire post was this (with the correction of one type error)

Are you talking about this?
 

The model for the flood is that the fountains of the deep were broken up, splitting the continents apart and causing the biggest devastation and catastrophe in history, the volcanic activity would have been tremendous. As as plates slowed down the larger islands could have then grown, making sense of the differences in size. So then initially the splitting of the pangea super-continent would have happened quickly from the tremendous breaking up of the fountains of the deep, super hot water knifing through from below the earth's crust, and causing a scar around the whole world, the mid-oceanic ridge, which on a waterless map of the globe can be seen, with stretch marks on each side.

 

Because if that is your "explanation" and "data", it's codswallop.
 
1) provide evidence for this flood. And the Hawaiian islands can't be used, otherwise you'll making the fallacy of circular reasoning.
2) explain that the islands have been growing, once cut off from the lava chamber of the hot spot. 
3) provide evidence that they have grown at all.
4) what does this difference in size means, as that somehow has made sense according to you.
 
Until now you have just made bare assertions.

 


You deleted the part "once cut off from the lava chamber" which is an essential part of your "flood model" for the Hawaiian Islands. And a fatal flaw of your model. 



#87 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:40 PM

When I said "more later," I didn't think it would be over a week...... sorry....

 

Yes I do think that a hypothesis can become generally accepted within the scientific community without being thoroughly tested and verified. But those aren't really my own thoughts, but more thoughts on how science actually works according to more knowledgeable people like Kuhn. Some prime examples are the old universe hypothesis and psychoanalysis.

Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "being thoroughly tested and verified."

 

Old universe is about as thoroughly tested and one can do without billions of years of direct observations.  Which we actually have.  When we look at distant astronomical objects, we are actually observing what happened at the time and place the light was created.  Understand, I started out YEC and it was physics and more specifically, astronomy, that caused me to reject Genesis literalism and YEC.  It's been discussed a number of times and is probably off topic for this specific discussion.

 

It very much look like cherry picking.

To me, it looks much more like due diligence.

 

You complain about the assumptions of the method then accuse scientists of cherry picking when they say objects that are known to violate those assumptions aren't suitable for testing.   You can't have it both ways.

 

All methods and technologies have known limitations.  One of the reasons I cited that research on K-Ar. dating was to show that those who use those methods are fully aware of the problems and are constantly working to resolve them.

 

But I don't say that all radioisotope dating are all bad or completely useless. I'm not even saying that they are wrong. But they still aren't good science and not a good argument for an old earth.

Nor am I saying these methods are perfect.  But they do provide good evidence of an ancient planet, solar system, and universe.

 

 

Like other radioisotope dating methods, the C-14 dating method must be calibrated. And here we have the luxury of talking rather short ages, which means that you can find objects of known age to calibrate the method. At least within the known human history. But with K-Ar and Ar-Ar how does the calibration work really, how do you know the age of stones without using interdependent methods for calibrating that?

Again, the advantage of Ar.-Ar. is that it not only overcomes the problem of initial Ar but allows actual measurement of it. 

 

For calibration, it's fairly standard to use a step ladder approach.  C14 was calibrated using objects of known ages.  Then longer C14 dates can be used to calibrate other longer methods (U-Th comes to mind) that reach farther back then those can be used to calibrate even longer processes such as K-Ar.  The researchers are fully aware of stacking errors which is why the longer ages have bigger error bars.

 

And talking about such vasts amounts of time we also have the problem of uniformatism creeping in, how do we know that processes are uniform over million of years?.

Well, I have pretty good evidence in the signature of 56Co in the spectra of Sn1987a that the process has been stable for 167,000+ years. 

 

Back in 2002, Paul Davies published a paper showing the fine structure constant and the speed of light were within a fraction of a percent of current values on Earth.  Those values have a lot to do with nuclear decay rates.

 

The RATE commission found billions of years of radioactive decay has taken place.  Their proposal is DOA (Dead on Arrival) because they also found the amount of decay that had taken place in their proposed timeframe would melt the planet.

 

It would take a major change in the fundamental properties of matter to significantly change radioactive decay rates.

 

But I have a luxury here which is denied to naturalists like yourself, namely that I don't need to believe in a young or old earth. I might follow the evidence where it leads. But you on the other hand can't believe in a young earth due to your bias.

You might follow the evidence where it leads, but I seriously doubt it.

 

It is always amusing to me to see creationists tell me: "you ... can't believe in a young earth due to your bias."  How about the open displays of bias exhibited by every single creation science organization.  Each and every one of them has a "statement of faith" that declares any evidence in conflict with their view is invalid by definition .... before it is even considered.

 

I started out as a YEC.... it was the evidence of an ancient universe that convinced me that understanding of God's creation was inaccurate.



#88 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2017 - 04:34 PM

But this seems a lot like cherry picking when you talk about "done properly" and "appropriate sample". If some samples does not give the expected result doesn't necessarily mean that it is the sample that errs, it could be that the method used is faulty. How do you know?

If the method is correct you predict that a stone is say 90 - 110 million year old. But that prediction doesn't show that the method is correct, it's just a prediction of the stone's age, if the method is correct. And to falsify this you could demonstrate a significant change in radioisotope decay rates or you could show that the initial argon content is unknown. Or that some of the other assumptions of the method doesn't hold water.

Again, why is it cherry picking to recognize the limitations of the method and/or equipment?   Doesn't due diligence require you to ensure the sample and method conform, as much as possible, to the requirements and capabilities of the process being used.  If you are presented with a sample you know violates the assumptions of the method or the limitations of your equipment, should you go ahead and test it anyway?

 

If the method is correct you predict that a stone is say 90 - 110 million year old. But that prediction doesn't show that the method is correct, it's just a prediction of the stone's age, if the method is correct. And to falsify this you could demonstrate a significant change in radioisotope decay rates or you could show that the initial argon content is unknown. Or that some of the other assumptions of the method doesn't hold water.

Validation of the method takes place before it is used to determine ages.

 

At least you now acknowledge there are ways to falsify the method.  Now, all you need do is show the assumptions are invalid.  Of course the scientists are fully aware of the assumptions and will, quite properly, refuse to test a sample that violates those assumptions for the very reason that it does violate the assumptions.  Again, what you call "cherry picking" I call "due diligence."

 

What I've shown here is that given the K-Ar method we really have no way to know the initial amount of argon in the sample. That a sample is contaminated by excess argon is not uncommon.

Which is one of the known limitations of the method and a reason why very young (historical) samples are not suitable for K-Ar. testing... at least not without special handling.   Excess initial argon has been shown to be insignificant for older samples.

 

 You try to avoid this problem by the relative Ar-Ar dating method. But since that method needs samples of known ages to calibrate the method nothing is actually solved for samples with old ages (more than say 5000 years). Where do you get the sample that is known to be 100 million years old, so you may calibrate the Ar-Ar method? So you really have no clue that what you are measuring is a slow process over a long time. It could be that you just measure different initial isotopic ratio between potassium and argon. Again how do we test that?

Calibration of all methods is done by comparison with standards of known value.  So what?  How can you calibrate except with a known standard?  This applies to everything from a $10 (US) multimeter to a multi-billion dollar space mission.

 

We don't need a sample known to be 100 million years old to validate Ar-Ar dating.  It can be done with a number of zero-age samples to demonstrate the process is able to establish initial content of argon isotopes.  It does.  Further, Ar-Ar dating has been used to accurately determine the date of samples known to have originated in the Vesuvius eruption of 79AD...  Well within the historical time frame.

 

You have been presented with two sites that describe how Ar-Ar works to measure the amount of initial radiogenic Argon.  Once that is known, it's a simple matter to correct the K-Ar date for that offset.  If you don't understand the explanations already provided, I'm not going to be able to help much.

 

If one assumption of the method that is used to calibrate the Ar-Ar parameters has been shown to be false (that all argon is the result of in situ decay of 40K, and not due to other reasons), haven't we just falsified the method.

Except that all argon being the result of in situ decay of 40K is not one of the assumptions of Ar-Ar dating.  In fact, dealing with that assumption of K-Ar dating is one of the reasons Ar-Ar was developed.  So, no you haven't just falsified the method since your claimed assumption isn't.

 

Since in science you only need 1 example to falsify an assumption, like the excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens.

Great ...  Austin's Mt. St. Helens example.  I was hoping that would come up....

 

From  http://creation.com/...al-concentrates :

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St Helens....data from this Mount St Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon’ was present when the lava solidified in 1986 ... The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?

 

The opening words pretty much show the problem and expose Austin's duplicity. 

 

It was well known that "conventional K-Ar dating" does not work on recently formed rocks when Austin submitted his sample for testing.  We have already documented such samples require special handling.  As a professional geologist, Austin knew, or should have known, about these limitations.

 

What we have is an "offset" caused by the initial Argon content of the sample.  That's hardly surprising.  Tell me.... how much significance do these offsets have in the measurement of rocks that comes out to tens, or hundreds of millions of years?

 

Further, the lab he chose to perform his testing "no longer performs K-Ar dating.  However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.).... Considering that the dacite probably erupted in 1986 AD, Austin should have known that at least some of the samples would have given dates that were younger than 2 million years old and that Geochron Laboratories could not have provided reliable answers."

Source: http://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm 

 

So, not only did Austin conceal the recent origin of these rocks, he deliberately chose a lab with equipment that was known to be incapable of determining ages less than 2 million years.  Why would he do this?  Why didn't he use the more appropriate Ar-Ar method for these rocks?  Had he revealed these important facts and tested the samples using appropriate processes and better technology, I suggest the result would have been vastly different.

 

Creationists often point out they deliberately conceal these things because the labs wouldn't accept their samples for testing if these critical facts were revealed.  In this case, he was absolutely right.... no lab would accept a "new' sample for testing using "conventional K-Ar dating" because such tests are known to require special processing and the lab to which he submitted the sample would decline because it was younger than the minimum age their equipment could handle.

 

No kidding.  Tell me, if you had a truck scale that could weigh trucks to 50,000 kg (about 110,000 lb) and you were limited to +/- 5kg by the design of your equipment, would you cherry pick and refuse to accept a 30g envelope to see if it needs more postage?  Why not? 

 

Austin didn't show anything that hadn't been clearly stated in the scientific literature for decades.  He showed nothing about the process that was not already known.  What he really did was to expose the lengths creationists will carry their deliberate deceptions to play a game of "gotcha."

 

 

So we have seen that the Ar-Ar testing doesn't help, since it's only a relative measurement that need samples of known ages to work.
A rebuttal has been given that shows that there exist at least one sample of known age that disprove at least one assumption.
Trying to use predictions of the method to show that the method is correct is a fallacy called affirming the consequent.
So the method should be (from a logical point of view) be considered falsified.

Austin didn't show Ar-Ar testing doesn't help because he didn't have Ar-Ar testing done on his sample.

 

You have not shown that Ar-Ar needs samples of known ages to work.

 

Your "rebuttal" relies on deception and fraud by deliberate concealment of vital information necessary to properly apply the method.

 

Using predictions of the method and comparing results against objects of known age is a simple fact of standard calibration processes.  Are you claiming calibration and verification are based on a logical fallacy?  How else would you show your process actually works?



#89 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:21 PM

That is not evidence, it is a preposterous claim. To shoehorn in rapid island chain formation you have to invent this unobserved and unevidenced super fast continental plate movement. On the other hand, the secular view uses observed rates of consistent (not slowing down) plate movement for which we do have an understood mechanism (mantle convection) that is also consistent with observed subsidence rates and with the island erosional sequence (which is still being ignored). And just so happens to fit nicely with radiometric ages (a method proven wrong you say ? Stop deluding yourself)


Who is deluded?

Following you own logic all hypothesis containing some sort of unobserved or unevidenced content are preposterous claims. But if you really believe that then you should also call evolution and the Big Bang theory for preposterous claims.

But my guess is that we won't see that happening, because I believe you have a confirmation bias when talking about different hypothesis.



#90 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:26 PM

Piasan, there aren't really any good evidence for an old universe, regardless of what you believe or not. And many of the methods are like measuring the last milliseconds on a marathon race and from that draw far fetched conclusions on how the race went about. Many of the methods gives new meanings to the words unwarranted extrapolations.

I'm not arguing (in this thread) that the earth is young, I'm just pointing out the bad science and logic used to try and defend that belief. In my meaning (as a christian) I think it would be wiser to first try and understand what the Bible thinks about these matters. Instead of starting to adjust the interpretations of the Bible due to some really lousy scientific arguments. Almost nobody today believe in an eternal universe, yet it was widely believed among scientist not long ago. And here it shows that sometimes it is better to rely on scripture rather than just buy into the current popular scientific theory.
 

For calibration, it's fairly standard to use a step ladder approach. C14 was calibrated using objects of known ages. Then longer C14 dates can be used to calibrate other longer methods (U-Th comes to mind) that reach farther back then those can be used to calibrate even longer processes such as K-Ar.  The researchers are fully aware of stacking errors which is why the longer ages have bigger error bars.


But this is also a good example of an unwarranted extrapolation. Because you really can't rely on C14 dates more than roughly 5000 years back, because beyond that point the method can't be calibrated so it's quite useless. If you don't know the amount of C14 in the the atmosphere at a given time, you don't know what the starting point is and the method does not work. And they try to prolong the time span of the method with things like dendrochronology without much success, it's really annoying in the way they do that so don't get me started on that.

And the K-Ar method (with or without the interdependent Ar-Ar method) is just so unreliable, since you really don't know (among other things) what the initial values of argon was in one sample. Lets say that the Ar-Ar methods shows that two samples of stones have the same initial content of argon, does that mean that they are of the same age? Ar-Ar doesn't say anything about absolute ages, does it? The facts you are measuring is ratios, and I'm just unconvinced that those ratios need to be due to old age. There aren't really any good evidence for that. It would be another thing if you could test the methods with samples of known ages (like recent volcanos), which is why the C14 method is reliable to some extend. But when measuring ratios of known ages with K-Ar did not work out, the scientists (instead of abandon the method) created a help hypothesis to try and save the method. Quite the common thing to do actually within a paradigm, but just not the thing that makes the method look reliable. What use do you have for such a method anyway? It really seems that you can't falsify the result of any K-Ar measurement since any sample that give the wrong date can easily be discarded due to excess initial argon or contamination. You just test x times until you get the result you wanted. Great method right?

So please read Kuhn and his theories on how "normal science" actually works, his work really changed how science is regarded among philosophers even though he might not be correct in all aspects of course.


  • mike the wiz and eddified like this

#91 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:07 AM

 

 

Wibble: Now, remembering that corals depend on sunlight so cannot form below about 50m or so how are there relict reefs down at this depth on volcanoes that formed rapidly after the flood ? This is why I am having to repeat myself because you are not answering these specific questions but go off on some irrelevant tangent.

 

No that isn't why I go off on a tangent. I go off on a tangent because debate-wise, my only job was to refute your initial point which you have now forgotten. That point was that corals can only be old but when we proved they can grow quickly, you changed the goal posts and instead made the discussion about how Noah's flood would mean those reefs shouldn't be there. 

 

I am not saying those reefs happened after the flood, had you read properly I gave an explanation for why the continents risen and then fell meaning those dead reefs are sunken and existed like the thousands of sunken islands, pre-flood.

 

"Now, remembering that corals depend on sunlight so cannot form below about 50m or so how are there relict reefs down at this depth on volcanoes that formed rapidly after the flood "

 

Well the clue is in your own words. If it is impossible for a coral to form without sunlight meaning the sunken reefs and islands, logically, must have not been at the bottom of the ocean at one time. How do you explain that with eons of age?

 

ADVICE: Your style is to ask new questions when the original ones have been answered. No doubt now you will start asking how new reefs formed after the flood and how the waters wouldn't boil, but remember the issue was what you were initially arguing - that the reefs must mean long ages, so our responses to you require us to show the reefs don't require long age, in order to refute your point. I say this because you do this a LOT at these forums, your style is to basically act like a many-headed monster, and each head asks questions. I chop one head off, and another pops up and asks a new question, I chop that one off and another pops up. In a debate that isn't fair - you are endless putting us on the stand and lampooning us but you never answer any questions yourself, or address anything we have proved, so your tactic is rhetorical, you only discuss what suits your ideological position and ignore the salient points we raise.

 

In case you haven't noticed, both I and Tirian are not to be lampooned. It is clear that we both have the intelligence to discuss this rationally, but you seem to depend on epithets and mocking of a young earth position. (ridicule and rhetoric)

 

Pipe down now old fellow, this isn't the victory you think it is. :P


  • Tirian likes this

#92 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:11 PM

Piasan, there aren't really any good evidence for an old universe, regardless of what you believe or not. And many of the methods are like measuring the last milliseconds on a marathon race and from that draw far fetched conclusions on how the race went about. Many of the methods gives new meanings to the words unwarranted extrapolations.

Regardless of what you believe or not, the evidence of an ancient universe (billions, not thousands of years old) is outstanding.  About the only way it could be any better is if we had someone monitoring it with a stop-watch.

 

I'm not arguing (in this thread) that the earth is young, I'm just pointing out the bad science and logic used to try and defend that belief. In my meaning (as a christian) I think it would be wiser to first try and understand what the Bible thinks about these matters. Instead of starting to adjust the interpretations of the Bible due to some really lousy scientific arguments. Almost nobody today believe in an eternal universe, yet it was widely believed among scientist not long ago. And here it shows that sometimes it is better to rely on scripture rather than just buy into the current popular scientific theory.

I agree that this is not the right thread to discuss the age of the universe.  If you want to pursue that point further in a new topic, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

 

Be careful around here when you say something like "the Bible thinks."   There are creationists here who (if they weren't hypocritical) would point out this is a logical fallacy because the Bible is an object and can't think.  Of course, we both know you are using that as a figure of speech.

 

What you call "some really lousy scientific arguments," I call rock-solid science with multiple converging lines of evidence.

 

I was unable to reconcile a young universe with a truthful God.  But again, that is probably a discussion better suited to a new topic.

 

..... you really can't rely on C14 dates more than roughly 5000 years back, because beyond that point the method can't be calibrated so it's quite useless. If you don't know the amount of C14 in the the atmosphere at a given time, you don't know what the starting point is and the method does not work. And they try to prolong the time span of the method with things like dendrochronology without much success, it's really annoying in the way they do that so don't get me started on that.

OK .... let me see if I understand what you're saying here.....

Nothing can be calibrated without being compared to something of known value at all points of the measurement scale.  To slide back to the previous matter for a second or so, by extension, no distances to stars can be valid either because no one has been to them with a ruler to measure the distance.

 

So far as I'm concerned, the dendrochronology work is valid to at least some 30,000 years or so.  But that's probably a matter for another topic also.

 

Basically, what you're saying is that the mainstream astronomers, geologists, and physicists who have developed the measurement methods and tools used in their respective fields are a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're doing.

 

.......

So please read Kuhn and his theories on how "normal science" actually works, his work really changed how science is regarded among philosophers even though he might not be correct in all aspects of course.

I'll discuss the K-Ar and Ar-Ar in another post as that's much more on-topic here.....

 

I've looked up Kuhn and found a summary of his book that I'll look into... I have neither the time nor inclination to read 250+ pages of philosophical discussion.  But a quick scan doesn't show anything I wasn't already aware of.

 

Since you cite Kuhn who was a physicist, I do have to ask ..... how old did Kuhn think the universe/Earth are?   Billions of years, or thousands?



#93 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:38 PM

No that isn't why I go off on a tangent. I go off on a tangent because debate-wise, my only job was to refute your initial point which you have now forgotten. That point was that corals can only be old but when we proved they can grow quickly, you changed the goal posts and instead made the discussion about how Noah's flood would mean those reefs shouldn't be there.


I haven’t forgotten any points. You just haven’t understood the reef issues (or pretended not to in order to avoid having to face up to them). Nor have I changed any goalposts (show me where you think I did that)
 

I am not saying those reefs happened after the flood, had you read properly I gave an explanation for why the continents risen and then fell meaning those dead reefs are sunken and existed like the thousands of sunken islands, pre-flood.


Nope, you don’t get away with invoking even more made up solutions for which you have zero evidence. How can it be intellectually satisfying for you to do this constantly ?

You certainly did not think that these reefs (which fringe the volcanic islands) must have formed pre flood earlier in this thread because in post #19 you quoted AiG which asserts that all the islands plus the seamounts, the ENTIRE CHAIN were formed by volcanic activity during the flood year, with southernmost islands forming as the flood was waning. In fact, CMI state that all the islands were post Flood.
 

Well the clue is in your own words. If it is impossible for a coral to form without sunlight meaning the sunken reefs and islands, logically, must have not been at the bottom of the ocean at one time. How do you explain that with eons of age?


Looks like I have to repeat myself again, how many more times until you actually absorb it ? The sunken reefs formed when they were in shallow water around the islands. They have sunk because of the subsidence that has occurred as the islands move northwards just as is directly measured today.

Vertical coral growth may keep up with the subsidence rate which is why you can get enormous depth of reef (such as the 1400m of Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands) but subsidence combined with sea level rises due to climate change at the end of each Pleistocene glacial stage is what caused the reef terracing between Molokai and Hawaii main island as I mentioned in the first post.

The deeply drowned reefs on the much older northern seamounts stopped growing when the northward progression pushed them up to latitudes too cool for coral growth (called the Darwin Point) while subsidence continued.

 

ADVICE: Your style is to ask new questions when the original ones have been answered. No doubt now you will start asking how new reefs formed after the flood and how the waters wouldn't boil, but remember the issue was what you were initially arguing - that the reefs must mean long ages, so our responses to you require us to show the reefs don't require long age, in order to refute your point. I say this because you do this a LOT at these forums, your style is to basically act like a many-headed monster, and each head asks questions. I chop one head off, and another pops up and asks a new question, I chop that one off and another pops up. In a debate that isn't fair - you are endless putting us on the stand and lampooning us but you never answer any questions yourself, or address anything we have proved, so your tactic is rhetorical, you only discuss what suits your ideological position and ignore the salient points we raise.


What salient points have you raised exactly ? You haven’t uncovered any problems with the mainstream view and provided zero evidence or plausible reasoning that the ad hoc Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model in any way fits with the observations.

You either chop off an unrelated head or attempt the decapitation with a feather duster.
 

In case you haven't noticed, both I and Tirian are not to be lampooned. It is clear that we both have the intelligence to discuss this rationally, but you seem to depend on epithets and mocking of a young earth position. (ridicule and rhetoric)


All you two do is like each others posts whether they are worthy or not.

Epithets ? Mocking ?

I give evidence for my position and do my best to provide a solid case. You come up with conjecture, miracles, misleading analogies and assert that millions of years are “fictional”.
 

Pipe down now old fellow, this isn't the victory you think it is.


The case for this is overwhelming in favour of millions of years. You yourself agreed it was compelling case for the age of the chain a few posts in, what happened to this brief moment of candour ?



#94 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:45 AM

Regardless of what you believe or not, the evidence of an ancient universe (billions, not thousands of years old) is outstanding.  About the only way it could be any better is if we had someone monitoring it with a stop-watch.

Basically, what you're saying is that the mainstream astronomers, geologists, and physicists who have developed the measurement methods and tools used in their respective fields are a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're doing.
 
I'll discuss the K-Ar and Ar-Ar in another post as that's much more on-topic here.....


No I'm not doing ad-hominen attacks, why would I? I'm attacking the science used for radiometric dating. And this should be embraced if you believe in the scientific method, since you should strive to falsify hypothesis as been discussed earlier. The questions is why one need to feel that one is called idiot when the scientific method used is challenged, it sounds to me that someone has an emotional investment in the method and can't objectively look at the critique given.

The problem here Piasan is that I have actually pointed out why the science is bad, it's just not bare assertions from my side. And to my knowledge you (and the scientist) do agree on most of the problems I've raised. So why not just admit that it's not good science? What investment into old ages have you done that you (and many scientist) ignore the shortcomings of the methods and still call it good science?

We have problem that the initial potassium/argon ratios might vary, which is a known fact, and without a known baseline the method doesn't work. We have to do assumptions on what the amount of atmospheric argon was at the time of formation and that no non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock. We also have to assume that the material in question have been a closed system for the entire period and that the isotopes of potassium in the rock/mineral have not fractionated, except by 40K decay. We have to assume that the decay constants of 40K are accurately known and that the quantities of 40Ar and potassium in the rock/mineral are accurately determined. The Ar-Ar method only gives relative dates and the J factor have to be calibrated by stones which are of a known age. And that is usually done with the K-Ar method, which makes it close to a circular reasoning really. The Ar-Ar method also routinely gives different ages not only for a stone but for individual minerals, which for one who is skeptic seems real strange. How could the same mineral give different ages way beyond the fault tolerance of the method? The Ar-Ar method never actually measures the initial amount of excess argon, which have been claimed in this thread, but rather if the age spectrum of the analysis is curved (in whatever way) the method assumes that it is due to high temperatures or excess argon. But (at best) that only means that the Ar-Ar method can invalidate some of the samples. It's actually impossible for the Ar-Ar to give wrong dates, it can only confirm or invalidate known ages. Assuming of course that the ratios are actually age related. It's not well established really that the correlation of the ratios is due to a million year long process, that's just an assumption in both K-Ar and Ar-Ar.

The whole dating game is so subjective. It's to easy to discard measurements and only keep the 'good' values, so the methods becomes more or less worthless. Calling it good science is just so unfair to science that is good.

But have you bought into that paradigm then you sadly enough probably don't even realize that, unless you could look outside your own box. Kuhns thoughts about the age of earth is not why I raised his name, it is his thoughts about normal science, paradigms and scientists objectivity that is a matter for this thread. One should have at least a basic understanding of these things, even if one doesn't agree with Kuhn. Because he raises some good points about the scientific method that needs to be understood.
 

So far as I'm concerned, the dendrochronology work is valid to at least some 30,000 years or so.  But that's probably a matter for another topic also.


This is a flat out lie, why do you as christian resort to lies in order to defend your position?

There are a very few (2 - 3 maybe) complete dendrochronical series that are supposed to stretch further than 10,000 years back, the longest stretch perhaps 13,000 years back. Due to how dendrochronology work the series have to be complete in one area to say anything. And these series doesn't contain very many 'old' samples. And that coupled with how dendrochronology actually work (pattern recognition software and location specific), does make the old dates very dubious. One of the main concerns is that you simple don't have material enough to make a solid case for the older dates in the series. So please stop lying ...


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#95 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:26 PM

Regardless of what you believe or not, the evidence of an ancient universe (billions, not thousands of years old) is outstanding.  About the only way it could be any better is if we had someone monitoring it with a stop-watch.....

 

Basically, what you're saying is that the mainstream astronomers, geologists, and physicists who have developed the measurement methods and tools used in their respective fields are a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're doing.

No I'm not doing ad-hominen attacks, why would I? .....The questions is why one need to feel that one is called idiot when the scientific method used is challenged,

Really?  Let's see....

 

You may need to look again at what I said.  It appears you think you were called an idiot. That is not correct.  What I said was that you seem to think the scientists are idiots.

 

 

So far as I'm concerned, the dendrochronology work is valid to at least some 30,000 years or so.  But that's probably a matter for another topic also.

This is a flat out lie, why do you as christian resort to lies in order to defend your position?
......  please stop lying ...

That certainly looks like you just called me a liar ... twice.... in the very same post you said you don't do ad-hominems.  Calling someone a liar is a classic example of an ad hominem.

 

Not only that, but you accuse me of lying about a statement of my opinion.  Is there something that gives you a better insight than me of my own opinions?

 

Were you telling the truth when you said you are "not doing ad-hominem attacks?"

 

What do they call it when someone says something then acts in the exact opposite way?

 

Enough said.  I plan no further comment on the matter.



#96 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 March 2017 - 10:26 PM

You may need to look again at what I said.  It appears you think you were called an idiot. That is not correct.  What I said was that you seem to think the scientists are idiots.


I obviously didn't make myself clear in the first part. I understood that you accused me of thinking that some scientists are idiots. But I'm not. Maybe they are caught up within their own paradigm or something, but idiots they are not. I'm just saying that it's strange that you would think that their intelligence is in question, just because I challenge the scientific method they are using. I'm not saying anything about the scientists, I'm just pointing out that radiometric methods for age determination like K-Ar and Ar-Ar is really bad science for a number of reasons which I have pointed out.
 

That certainly looks like you just called me a liar ... twice.... in the very same post you said you don't do ad-hominems.  Calling someone a liar is a classic example of an ad hominem. Not only that, but you accuse me of lying about a statement of my opinion.  Is there something that gives you a better insight than me of my own opinions?
 
Were you telling the truth when you said you are "not doing ad-hominem attacks?" What do they call it when someone says something then acts in the exact opposite way?


Sure I was a bit sharp in my tone, but I've tried to distinguish between the thing and the person. The truth is that you put forward something in the debate that is just not true. And I was attacking that thing, not you as a person. Sorry if you took that personal, that was not my intention. But why on earth do you say something like "the dendrochronology work is valid to at least some 30,000 years or so" when it's not true? Why use an untrue statements in order to defend your position? If it is only your opinion as you say, why hold on to that opinion when it's clearly not true? I just don't understand why you wrote that. Where is it coming from?



#97 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 March 2017 - 11:50 PM

 Sorry if you took that personal, that was not my intention.

OK.

 

 

But why on earth do you say something like "the dendrochronology work is valid to at least some 30,000 years or so" when it's not true? Why use an untrue statements in order to defend your position? If it is only your opinion as you say, why hold on to that opinion when it's clearly not true? I just don't understand why you wrote that. Where is it coming from?

The opening words to my comment are critical here:

"So far as I'm concerned"  means "in my opinion."  It is not a statement of fact.  It is a true statement of my opinion. 

 

I hold that opinion based on my research of the scientific papers.  Have you read any of the primary papers?

 

I suggest dendrochronology  and calibration may be a bit off topic.

 

Dammit ! ! !  I had about 2 hours in a response on radiometric dating and took a shower.  While I was in the shower, Microsoft took control of my computer and restarted it.  Then I responded to this before going back to my auto saved content.

 

Oh well....



#98 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:31 AM

When I reread my post I can understand your reaction Piasan, so once again I do apoligize.
 

The opening words to my comment are critical here:
"So far as I'm concerned"  means "in my opinion."  It is not a statement of fact.  It is a true statement of my opinion. 

I hold that opinion based on my research of the scientific papers.  Have you read any of the primary papers?


Yeah I've read a few scientific papers regarding dendrochronology, especially about the series from Torneträsk. And usually you have an abundant of samples for recent ages but they get more and more scarce the longer back you get. At times the whole series might be held together with a few trunks that only overlap with a few rings. When I did look at the actual samples making up Torneträsk dendrochronology data, I was rather concerned about how little data they have. It doesn't need much in making a false positive match for the dates to not reflect reality. The scarce samples together with the subjectivity built into the method makes the method very unreliable for older ages.

But let's return to the 30,000 age claim. Because even if you would find the method reliable for all ages somehow, how do you get to 30,000? What complete (it has to be complete, free floating series really don't help) and local (it has to be local) dendrochronology exists beyond say 10,000 years? How far back do they go? And how do you get from there to 30,000?


  • eddified likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users