Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
macten

Helloooo

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

Just thought I'd say hi.

Genuinely fascinated by the creationist's world view. I have never met anyone in real life

who dismisses TOE and believes in the Genesis version of events. Though not that uncommon

being European I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

Just thought I'd say hi.

Genuinely fascinated by the creationist's world view. I have never met anyone in real life

who dismisses TOE and believes in the Genesis version of events. Though not that uncommon

being European I suppose.

 

Welcome to the forum :)

 

Perhaps you weren't looking in the right places ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, macten!

 

Genuinely fascinated by the creationist's world view.

Is this a recent development?

 

I have never met anyone in real life who dismisses TOE and believes in the Genesis version of events.

You need to get out more. :P

 

Again, welcome :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome macten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys!

 

Haha I do get out but I'm from England not USA. Even the vicars and priests I've met over here accept TOE.

So I really wouldn't know where to go to meet a real life YECer!

 

Adam - Curiosity has finally got the better of me this last year or two and I have to say it's fascinating.

Mind boggling, as me and my ilk must be to you but still find it really interesting.

 

Anyway thanks for the welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam - Curiosity has finally got the better of me this last year or two and I have to say it's fascinating.

Anything particular that you'd like to share? The nice thing about a welcome thread is we can keep the discussion informal.

 

Mind boggling, as me and my ilk must be to you...

Not really. I was raised in a Roman Catholic home with immigrant parents from Hungary who encouraged us to accept and enjoy evolutionary beliefs as virtually self-evident. I held these beliefs until around the time I was thirty.

 

My mind is not boggled at all by your beliefs. I've just concluded that they are false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How did that come about Adam?

An old-time toolmaker challenged me years ago to examine my belief in Darwinian Evolution and deep time. I took on that challenge over the course of a couple years. I repented of my wishy-washy (and very unnecessary) mixture of Christianity and Darwinian Evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what was involved over the course of those two years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what was involved over the course of those two years?

Sure. I critically questioned evolution on its own merit. I found myself absolutely astonished at the kind of information and arguments that were withheld from me in science class to bolster Darwinian Evolution.

 

At the time, YouTube was just coming into its own. I gobbled it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what was involved over the course of those two years?

The first little piece of "Creationist propaganda" was this old worn out VHS that the above mentioned toolmaker had me watch with Steve Austin talking about Mt St Helen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading about that.

How did Austin's improper use of the K-Ar method swing you away from old earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading about that. How did Austin's improper use of the K-Ar method swing you away from old earth?

"Improper" as in subjecting it to a blind test? How do you feel about evolutionists attributing explanatory power to radiometric dating that is unreasonable and unverifiable and often erroneous? How many clever excuses can they make for bad dates and unexpected findings? Contamination, background noise, tampering... all good stuff when it's convenient. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give you a translation to every criticism of how Austin presented those samples:

 

"We weren't able to properly calibrate the equipment" -Translation: "If we would have known it was from a recent eruption we would have refused to work with it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Improper as in subjecting it to the wrong test.

Do you realize how that sounds? You might as well say "We subject samples to the types of tests that will yield the results we expect."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it?

 

It's more like a woman testing her urine with a diabetes test kit to find out if she's pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more like a woman testing her urine with a diabetes test kit to find out if she's pregnant.

Macten, that is a superb analogy for the greater purported power of radiometric dating. The ability to determine material content (diabetic testing) is believed to determine age (pregnancy testing).

 

Very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Improper as in subjecting it to the wrong test.

 

If that is the case then how can you know that the right test was conducted on samples which gave a "correct" age... Those rocks could also be young and just give the same false positive results given for Austin's rocks, but evolutionists assume the numbers are correct, how do they know?

 

If you get false positive results from a test then you need a way to determine whether a false positive was done or not, ergo there needs to be another totally different method to verify those results... Yet what happens when different results are obtained which do you go with?... Ah so you need another totally different method to ensure which one to go with, so at least two more totally different methodologies need to be used, yet there aren't any...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Macten, that is a superb analogy for the greater purported power of radiometric dating. The ability to determine material content (diabetic testing) is believed to determine age (pregnancy testing).

 

Very good.

 

biggrin.png Nice spin on my point - fair play!

 

Seriously though - All Austin did was exploit a known caveat in radiometric dating. It was bad science with good detailed scientific language

that impressed people who knew no better it certainly didn't tell Geologists anything they didn't already know. It was exposed for what it was

and quite rightly to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is the case then how can you know that the right test was conducted on samples which gave a "correct" age... Those rocks could also be young and just give the same false positive results given for Austin's rocks, but evolutionists assume the numbers are correct, how do they know?

 

If you get false positive results from a test then you need a way to determine whether a false positive was done or not, ergo there needs to be another totally different method to verify those results... Yet what happens when different results are obtained which do you go with?... Ah so you need another totally different method to ensure which one to go with, so at least two more totally different methodologies need to be used, yet there aren't any...

 

It's the principal reason that geologists never rely on just one dating method, with no checks or balances. That would be pretty wreckless. For most rocks, multiple types of radiometric dating are appropriate; and in practice, multiple samples would always be tested, not just one like Austin used. In combination, these tests give a far more complete and accurate picture of a rock's true age than just a single potassium-argon test could. In addition, stratigraphic and paleomagnetic data can often contribute to the picture as well. From many decades of such experience, geologists have excellent data that guides proper usage of each of these tools, and they don't include gross misuse of potassium-argon dating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though - All Austin did was exploit a known caveat in radiometric dating.

The caveat being... get as much stratigraphic data as possible about the sample so that you can impose whatever is predetermined necessary to properly date a given sample. Basically, go to the sample with the correct bias to tease out the 'right'... As in; predetermined answer.

 

And all the 'correlation' is based off the same methodology.

 

I've seen those technical papers. My eyebrow starts raising as I hear how the process needs 'calibrated' for samples of certain ages. That calibration process must be pretty intense for a sample 35 million years old. You have to have a lot of a patience or a time machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The caveat being... get as much stratigraphic data as possible about the sample so that you can impose whatever is predetermined necessary to properly date a given sample.

 

?

 

Not what I said:

 

 

It's the principal reason that geologists never rely on just one dating method, with no checks or balances. That would be pretty wreckless. For most rocks, multiple types of radiometric dating are appropriate; and in practice, multiple samples would always be tested, not just one like Austin used. In combination, these tests give a far more complete and accurate picture of a rock's true age than just a single potassium-argon test could. In addition, stratigraphic and paleomagnetic data can often contribute to the picture as well. From many decades of such experience, geologists have excellent data that guides proper usage of each of these tools, and they don't include gross misuse of potassium-argon dating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that can sound modestly compelling and obviously it is to many people who don't bother to dig into what's being said but you are shoehorning in data based on other assumptions...

 

True correlation and verification? Zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

biggrin.png Nice spin on my point - fair play!

 

Seriously though - All Austin did was exploit a known caveat in radiometric dating. It was bad science with good detailed scientific language

that impressed people who knew no better it certainly didn't tell Geologists anything they didn't already know. It was exposed for what it was

and quite rightly to.

 

Please respond to this...

 

If that is the case then how can you know that the right test was conducted on samples which gave a "correct" age... Those rocks could also be young and just give the same false positive results given for Austin's rocks, but evolutionists assume the numbers are correct, how do they know?

 

If you get false positive results from a test then you need a way to determine whether a false positive was done or not, ergo there needs to be another totally different method to verify those results... Yet what happens when different results are obtained which do you go with?... Ah so you need another totally different method to ensure which one to go with, so at least two more totally different methodologies need to be used, yet there aren't any...

 

If it is known that the method gives false positive results then why are evolutionists so adamant that the methodology is good to use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms