Jump to content


Photo

Arguments Not To Use (Peer Review)


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#81 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 15 July 2017 - 05:24 AM

3) The Creationist sites:  These guys KNOW the earth is 6,000 years old.  It's not "I think" or "possibly," but it's a fact.  In fact, as Piasan has pointed out numerous times, you can't join some of them unless you acknowledge this as a fact.  Now, do you really think they are going to give you objective opinions regarding the radiometric dating methods which have dated the earth, moon, and meteorites beyond 4 billion years old?  You can cherry pick to your heart's content, but it doesn't change the big picture and all of the data therein.

how is this any different than the other side of the coin?
it's almost illegal to mention you are a creationist if you happen to be a scientist.
if you honestly look at evolution, there isn't any real evidence for it.
science has no clue as to how life got here.
animal phyla arrived in the same way, science simply doesn't know.
with the above in mind, how ridiculous is it to ridicule a creationist?
  • mike the wiz, Gneiss girl and Blitzking like this

#82 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 16 July 2017 - 02:02 PM

 

 

 

Norman: How does that PROVE what you are claiming, Mike?  In other words, how do you know that the Colorado River basin isn't a mix of rocks of widely varying ages?

 

It was the same rock flow. Which means of all the same type of rock, and that portion was created at the same time. The same rock created at the same time had wildly different ages.

 

 

So this is how it proves it;

 

 

The so-called ‘model’1 potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘ages’ calculated for each of the 27 amphibolite samples from Grand Canyon ranged from 405.1 ± 10 Ma (million years) to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. That is a six-fold difference, for samples that should be of similar age.

Note that the error estimates (the ± numbers) are small compared with the age. They are also small compared with the variation in ages between samples. This means that the laboratory testing was precise. However, as the results show, the error estimates say nothing about the accuracy of the ‘ages’ of the rock samples.

Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should be even closer in age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ ranging from 1,060.4 ± 28 Ma to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma

http://creation.com/...he-grand-canyon

 

 


 

This document shows varying K-Ar dating results across multiple lava flows in the Grand Canyon, 16 lava dams containing a total of 63 lava flows.  Some of the lava dam K-Ar ages were judged to be statically reliable and others were not.  In this paper, Dalrymple describes some of the issues that can come up with K-Ar dating that can lead to spurious results.  And he discusses why some of the derived dam ages were considered statistically unreliable.  This document paints a much more complete and clearer picture of radiometric dating that often includes cases of concordant and discordant data.  And, when there is discordant data, scientists try to understand possible reasons for the discordance to further refine and improve the methods.

 

http://www.pnas.org/...7/9744.full.pdf

 

And again, Mike, "prove" is a word used by mathematicians, not scientists. 

 

Yeah, i'm not a "young-earth" creationist, technically because I am open to what happened in history not necessarily being the "young earth" version of events. I am a creationist, I believe God created life on earth. The details of when it happened, or if there are natural elements, left to do the job for God, I am open to that, I just 100% don't accept abiogenesis and evolution.

 

The problem is if you find a dinosaur with young tissue in rocks that are aged to be many millions of years old, about 65 myo, then obviously if it is impossible for the dino-fossil to be that old because of measurable decay of collagen, then that means the rocks the dino are in are also young, and all the other fossils in that era of rock.

 

To compound/corroborate this evidence, C14 tests shows that all such testing for dinosaur fossils have given ages of about 25 to 35,000 years.

 

You are correct that because these are historical hypotheses, they can compete. Technically there isn't going to be one all-powerful knock-out punch either way, but to think it is about the amount of evidence can be the fallacy of exclusion.

 

Nobody is looking for youthful tissue in dino horns or bones, because of observer-bias. You tend to forget, the money and backing isn't going into the type of science that might favour youth. That alone by analogy, if we compare evolution science with creation findings, is like comparing how well backed a very rich person is, with billionaire parents, compared a person not backed by any real funding.

 

Automatically that is going to mean that everything the billionaire does because of his funding, is going to be established. But if youthful evidence is banned from science, with no funding or no support, that will make it look amateurish.

 

What you have to ask yourself is this; are they looking for youth in bones? Secondly, had science backed research into youth and long ages hadn't had all this work, who do you think would now be appealing to the more thoroughly researched science?

 

I think you know the answer - I would be the one saying, "the majority of the evidence shows youth", if science had taken the position to back youth not age.

 

So it's important to remember that. We have a 150 year history of uniformity-research. What have they researched for a competing hypothesis?

 

So the "bias" is well ensconced in evolutionary academia, so it's a bit amusing you say creationists are biased.

 

 

One of the first scientific attempts to determine the age of the earth was done by Lord Kelvin...who estimated the earth to be ~20 to 40 million years old.  He did this by using the heat equations to calculate the amount of energy required to create the earth and the resulting heat and then the amount of time required for the heat to dissipate down to the current temperature.  But, the thing is, Mike, the scientific community didn't latch onto those values as absolute truth, e.g., as their "6,000 years" and conclude that any method or test that challenges those values must immediately by debunked.  In fact, just the opposite happened....as our knowledge of the physical world expanded and new methods became available, age estimates of the earth changed numerous times.  And, it may change again.  For young-earth creationists, a 6,000 year old earth has been a cornerstone of their faith for thousands of years....and it will not and cannot be adjusted or challenged.  That's fine, but when it comes to actual science, I find the first approach far more appealing.

 

An another case in point, compare our two papers (yours from Snelling and mine from Dalrymple)...which one do you find to be more biased??



#83 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 16 July 2017 - 02:25 PM

 

Norman have you ever read this article?

 

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

 

Just read it all, it's not that long. What do you think of the bias in it? It seems to me a lot of labs were saying this; "no, I won't date the sample because I know the results will favour youth."

 

Look at this - it's your exact argument of "too many concordant results", only it favours youth;

 

 

 

Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating.  These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely

 

 

Like I said, Mike, you can throw it in the bin of evidence for a younger earth.  As far as the labs go, in some respect I can see their point of view.  There is an abundance of evidence that most if not all the dinosaurs died out over 65 million years, e.g., dating of the K-T boundary, etc.  And these guys know that carbon dating will yield dates less than 70K or so....and it doesn't matter how old the bone is (carbon dating runs into the same problem a K-Ar dating, but reversed).  But, I say screw it....do the tests for them anyway...as long as they pay for it because a) if you don't, it gives them fuel to point the bias finger (as you are doing here), but, more importantly, b ) it doesn't really matter in the end.  The creationists won't submit their results and methods for review by mainstream science and, consequently, mainstream science will continue to ignore them....and things continue on as they have.



#84 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 16 July 2017 - 04:21 PM

The creationists won't submit their results and methods for review by mainstream science and, consequently, mainstream science will continue to ignore them....and things continue on as they have.

don't even TRY this route.
science is just as guilty of the above shenanigans as any creationist is.
outright dismissing valid research results for a favored theory.

you'll notice arrowsmith has not sown up here to answer the charges i leveled against him, and he never will.

but go right on ahead believing science is the perfect mistress.

BTW, science does indeed prove things.

#85 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:23 AM

 

 

Norman have you ever read this article?

 

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

 

Just read it all, it's not that long. What do you think of the bias in it? It seems to me a lot of labs were saying this; "no, I won't date the sample because I know the results will favour youth."

 

Look at this - it's your exact argument of "too many concordant results", only it favours youth;

 

 

 

Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating.  These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely

 

 

Like I said, Mike, you can throw it in the bin of evidence for a younger earth.  As far as the labs go, in some respect I can see their point of view.  There is an abundance of evidence that most if not all the dinosaurs died out over 65 million years, e.g., dating of the K-T boundary, etc.  And these guys know that carbon dating will yield dates less than 70K or so....and it doesn't matter how old the bone is (carbon dating runs into the same problem a K-Ar dating, but reversed).  But, I say screw it....do the tests for them anyway...as long as they pay for it because a) if you don't, it gives them fuel to point the bias finger (as you are doing here), but, more importantly, b ) it doesn't really matter in the end.  The creationists won't submit their results and methods for review by mainstream science and, consequently, mainstream science will continue to ignore them....and things continue on as they have.

 

 

"But, I say screw it....do the tests for them anyway...as long as they pay for it because a) if you don't, it gives them fuel to point the bias finger (as you are doing here), but, more importantly, b ) it doesn't really matter in the end."

 

Oh, they have offered to pay for it,, and an extra $20,000 to boot.. To a preeminent paleontologist and dinosaur fossil expert. but were turned down flat.. The reason given? it "Isnt about the money"  Nice honest science...

 

Here, you can listen to it for yourself...  It is painful if you are an evolutionist, and extremely telling as well.. :yoda: 

 

 

 

 

Darwin+Altar+small.jpg






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users