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

Helloooo

Recommended Posts

I did respond to it Gilbo.

 

macten, on 21 Feb 2014 - 20:26, said:snapback.png

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 must have missed it, my apologies

macten, on 22 Feb 2014 - 06:46, said:snapback.png

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.

 

So how does one test the radiometric date methodology? Using different types of radiometric dating methods means its the same methodology and thus has the same flaws inherent in that method, such as giving false positive results...

 

How do you know that the rocks that you believe are "millions of years" old aren't just another false positive result that Austin demonstrated? In other words how is the radiometric methodology itself tested to ensure the dates it gives are accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have missed it, my apologies

 

macten, on 22 Feb 2014 - 06:46, said:snapback.png

 

So how does one test the radiometric date methodology? Using different types of radiometric dating methods means its the same methodology and thus has the same flaws inherent in that method, such as giving false positive results...

 

How do you know that the rocks that you believe are "millions of years" old aren't just another false positive result that Austin demonstrated? In other words how is the radiometric methodology itself tested to ensure the dates it gives are accurate?

 

Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

 

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

 

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

 

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

 

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

 

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

 

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

 

 

Actually quite often they get differing results... Its just that it is repeated over and over until a "correct" result is obtained..... See below... 5.19 onwards... Out of 100 different tests only 4 came up with the number they wanted, whilst getting totally contradictory dates including dates which were older than supposed age of the Earth... Seems a bit "hit and miss" to me, not particularly reassuring.

 

 

 

 

 

And 8.00 onwards

 

 

 

Please read my post.

 

So how does one test the radiometric date methodology? Using different types of radiometric dating methods means its the same methodology and thus has the same flaws inherent in that method, such as giving false positive results...

 

How do you know that the rocks that you believe are "millions of years" old aren't just another false positive result that Austin demonstrated? In other words how is the radiometric methodology itself tested to ensure the dates it gives are accurate?

 

If you have a method that can give false positive results then how can you know that the results being given are not false positive?.. Does this not concern you? Do they conduct these other tests on fossils?

 

 

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

 

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

 

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

 

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

 

Please go through each of these techniques and demonstrate how they are consistent. Simply saying so doesn't make it so smile.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually quite often they get differing results... Its just that it is repeated over and over until a "correct" result is obtained.....See below... 5.19 onwards... Out of 100 different tests only 4 came up with the number they wanted, whilst getting totally contradictory dates including dates which were older than supposed age of the Earth... Seems a bit "hit and miss" to me, not particularly reassuring.

 

 

 

Maybe if you actually read the paper in it's entirety and then learned a bit about the techniques and background (which I had to) then you might

find it extremely compelling. Much better to do that than just listen to some YEC drone on about something he doesn't fully understand.

 

If you would like to actually learn the truth about the research then you can read the full paper here and the Supplemental Information document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read my post.

 

 

If you have a method that can give false positive results then how can you know that the results being given are not false positive?.. Does this not concern you? Do they conduct these other tests on fossils?

 

 

 

Already answered it twice now Gilbo. I suspect you will just keep asking though sad.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please go through each of these techniques and demonstrate how they are consistent. Simply saying so doesn't make it so smile.png

 

Do some research on the papers like I did with the zircon crystal.

If you still doubt it based on the conflict of your religious beliefs then fine - fortunately

science isn't biased like that even though it seems to be your mission to tell the less informed that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already answered it twice now Gilbo. I suspect you will just keep asking though sad.png

You know we prefer getting something other than hand-waving responses.

 

Macten, if you discovered that you were having your mind corralled by very unscientific assumptions and it was being fed to you as demonstrable science, would it concern you?

 

I'm not saying anybody is deliberately lying to you but say you woke up one day and realized you were in a current of information that claimed to be one thing, but was really another, would it stop you long enough to question the river you're in? The people that are defending their perspective are swimming in the same current with you so it seems to make sense. How would you know if you needed to get out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know we prefer getting something other than hand-waving responses.

 

Macten, if you discovered that you were having your mind corralled by very unscientific assumptions and it was being fed to you as demonstrable science, would it concern you?

 

I'm not saying anybody is deliberately lying to you but say you woke up one day and realized you were in a current of information that claimed to be one thing, but was really another, would it stop you long enough to question the river you're in? The people that are defending their perspective are swimming in the same current with you so it seems to make sense. How would you know if you needed to get out?

 

That's like asking 'what if I discovered God?' That is what's unscientific.

Science will always win over pseudoscience.

The human race has spent long enough living as you describe before the advent of Science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like asking 'what if I discovered God?'

What's wrong with that? Well? Answer the question.

 

What if He discovered you? Would you hide?

 

That is what's unscientific.

What has more weight in your estimation; Asking what is scientific or asking what is true? Do you perceive any difference? Would you argue that truth is only those things subject to the scientific method?

 

Science will always win over pseudoscience.

What do you have to demonstrate this assertion? Does this apply to all times and ages or just modern times?

 

The human race has spent long enough living as you describe before the advent of Science.

The advent of science was brought on by a knowledge of God. A correct knowledge. A biblical knowledge.

 

All atheists have done is... I can't think of anything. Everything they've done has been on the coattails of giants of the Faith and deists that still had the logical hue of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's like asking 'what if I discovered God?'

What's wrong with that? Well? Answer the question.

 

What if He discovered you? Would you hide?

I can't answer the question. To me it's the same kind of thing as asking me 'what if I discovered 1+1=37?'

Or 'what if I discovered Count Dracula in my kitchen?'

 

You would need to give me a specific scenario for me to even attempt to try an answer a question like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is what's unscientific.

What has more weight in your estimation; Asking what is scientific or asking what is true? Do you perceive any difference? Would you argue that truth is only those things subject to the scientific method?

Science is all about asking and discovering what is true. It is the best and therefore only tool we humans have

of understanding the natural world/cosmos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Science will always win over pseudoscience.

What do you have to demonstrate this assertion? Does this apply to all times and ages or just modern times?

I would call creationism pseudoscience - not because they are doing bad science - they aren't doing science at all,

but they attempt to threaten science education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The human race has spent long enough living as you describe before the advent of Science.

The advent of science was brought on by a knowledge of God. A correct knowledge. A biblical knowledge.

 

All atheists have done is... I can't think of anything. Everything they've done has been on the coattails of giants of the Faith and deists that still had the logical hue of God.

Well that is your view but it is a view that I couldn't disagree with more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is all about asking and discovering what is true. It is the best and therefore only tool we humans have

of understanding the natural world/cosmos.

Is this assertion something you've been able to demonstrate via the scientific method or was it something you accepted after it was revealed to you?

 

Question for you; is the scientific method subject to itself? If the scientific method is not something you can prove scientifically then what does that do to your belief about how inquiry works?

 

Are you one that ultimately falls back on relativism? That we can't know anything for sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this assertion something you've been able to demonstrate via the scientific method or was it something you accepted after it was revealed to you?

 

Question for you; is the scientific method subject to itself? If the scientific method is not something you can prove scientifically then what does that do to your belief about how inquiry works?

 

Are you one that ultimately falls back on relativism? That we can't know anything for sure?

 

Sorry Adam but this makes no sense to me.

Are you angling towards the argument that if the correct explanation for a phenomenon happens to be supernatural,

then the naturalistic method of science will miss it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is your view but it is a view that I couldn't disagree with more.

Is this a knee-jerk reaction or something you can substantiate?

 

Are you one that believes that science greats like Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, etc... were all just giving lip-service to God, due to the cultural climate, but deep down they were atheists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a knee-jerk reaction or something you can substantiate?

 

Are you one that believes that science greats like Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, etc... were all just giving lip-service to God, due to the cultural climate, but deep down they were atheists?

 

I've no idea how they felt deep down as far as I know they were theistic like almost everyone else of those times. If they were atheists then it

I suspect they kept it well hidden for fear of punishment. Poor Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his beliefs and he was

certainly not an Athiest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Already answered it twice now Gilbo. I suspect you will just keep asking though sad.png

 

I was asking questions based on your reply ergo you haven't replied.....

 

Do they do these other methods you state on the fossils?.... OR are radioactive dates assumed true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've no idea how they felt deep down as far as I know they were theistic like almost everyone else of those times. If they were atheists then it

I suspect they kept it well hidden for fear of punishment. Poor Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his beliefs and he was

certainly not an Athiest.

 

Are you creating a conspiracy? lol

 

Newton, (believed to be the greatest scientist in History), wrote more about God than he did about Physics... Should tell you something wink.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would call creationism pseudoscience - not because they are doing bad science - they aren't doing science at all,

but they attempt to threaten science education.

Name one thing that is subject to the scientific method that is threatened by a belief in creation. Creation does threaten Darwinian Evolution, which isn't science but a religion (or worldview... if you please) masquerading as science. Actually, a non-crippled examination of science is itself a threat to Darwinian Evolution. That's why NCSE is working to keep information out of science classrooms and curiously not trying to get it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you angling towards the argument that if the correct explanation for a phenomenon happens to be supernatural, then the naturalistic method of science will miss it?

No. I can demonstrate to anyone reading this that you exercise a double-standard if you think Darwinian Evolution is science and Creation is false because it can't be demonstrated using the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no idea how they felt deep down as far as I know they were theistic like almost everyone else of those times. If they were atheists then I suspect they kept it well hidden for fear of punishment.

Possibly. At the end of the day a person like Louis Pasteur or Raymond Damadian had/have no problem doing science in a paradigm respecting the God of scripture as creator and Genesis as the narrative for how He did it.

 

I would go one step further and say uniformitarianism, Darwinian Evolution and surreptitiously placed relativism are the real intellectual killers that plague our culture intellectually and morally.

 

Poor Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his beliefs and he was certainly not an Atheist.

Those people that burned him at the stake should have followed instruction from Jesus to realize they were defying and not obeying scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was asking questions based on your reply ergo you haven't replied.....

 

Do they do these other methods you state on the fossils?.... OR are radioactive dates assumed true?

 

Already answered it Gilbo - go back and read it again if you are struggling.

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