|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Not on topic at all!.
RAZD has worked very hard on an excellent compilation of information. Please do not clutter it up with junk posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Can you look up F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226. And send me a PDF? This has the old 200myr dates and should say why they are bad at the start. I think I couldn't without spending $30; I don't have the access. It could probably be gotten from the MIT library for much less but that wouldn't be a text PDF, it would be a PDF of pictures of text. I have a couple of academic contacts I can try; hang on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. I'll see what I can find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Junk posts? Junk posts? And here I thought the nonsense from AIG and Snelling were junk posts.:-p While Raz has done sterling work, how many times do we have to refute the same dating three-shells and a pea trix that these creo websites FAIL to correct. Meanwhile, the professional geo organisations fail to clamber over Snelling with his two-faced approach to dating, confirming it in geo journals, and refuting it on religious sites. It cost Plimer a fortune in court and years of heartbreak when he exposed the shenanigans of Snelling and his ilk while professional bodies stood idly by.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reserve Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
Once the constituents of the samples were completely understood and valid, well-defined, well-understood, and replicable sample selection and preparation methods were established, all the methods gave concordant dates. And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample. I just have to disagree with you on that. The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Not because the dates just fall from the observations, but because it needs to fit with the ToE. Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Once we understand this, dates will be overthrown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5020 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Reserve writes: The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. False. The physical nature of rocks and the nature of radioactive decay have been verified by the repetition of various experiments by thousands of different scientists across the world. It is telling how you have responded to the evidence contained within this thread. Like many YECs, you are reduced to either:- 1. pointing to some kind of ridiculous global conspiracy.2. attempting to undermine all science by initiating an entirely pointless debate as to the nature of reality itself. Both of these objections serve only to reveal the weakness of your position. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Reserve writes: And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample. "Complete understanding" applies to the available data - there is no disagreement among those who have studied the data. If the data has been misunderstood, if the data is inconclusive, if new data doesn't fit, etc. young-earthers are welcome to step up with their own science. They don't. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? The community of scientists, after results are examined and understood and replicated.
You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample. I just have to disagree with you on that. The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Not because the dates just fall from the observations, but because it needs to fit with the ToE. Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Once we understand this, dates will be overthrown. Ah, the old "we don't know everything therefore we know nothing" canard. Very popular, totally invalid. I should not have written "complete understanding"; better I should have written "sufficient understanding". The dates were conclusive based on precise laboratory measurements and well-understood physics, chemistry, and geology. The dates fell out of the observations, and did not agree with some people's (e.g. Leakey) idea of the ToE. They were not massaged to fit with the ToE; they were investigated further because different methods gave different answers. We know why some investigators found anomalous results. The dates are conclusive because of all of physics, geology, and chemistry (and I mean all); the ToE doesn't really come into it. There's no significant errors in the later results unless everything we think we know about physics and chemistry and geology is wrong. Radiometric dating is correct because your computer works ... think on that until you understand. Science does not try to account for possible future observations that may or may not agree with today's observations. All we got is what we have today (and we have one h*** of a lot of observations today) and the best theory that fits all those observations. YEC and Noye's Fludde do not even fit 1% of the observations. But you are still avoiding the point. Say for the sake of argument that all the dates for the KBS Tuff are wrong. Heck, say for the sake of argument that all K-Ar dates are wrong. There's still an incredibly wide-spread pattern of agreement between different dating methods, including non-radiometric methods, that must be explained by any viable theory. If your YEC "theory" does not have an explanation for that pattern your "theory" is hogwash. It doesn't matter how many individual problem cases you can come up with (especially since most if not all of them are not problem cases); they're still nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of results in the pattern. This thread is for discussing the pattern; individual results are on-topic only insofar as they relate to the pattern. Denying that the pattern exists ain't gonna work; it exists. Claiming that a few anomalous results invalidate the entire pattern ain't gonna work; nothing is 100% known in science, but the pattern is 99.99999% understood (hundreds of thousands of results in the pattern, remember). So what's your explanation of the pattern? Magic? Hundreds of thousands of coincidences that just happened to agree with mainstream science 99.999999% of the time but also gave wrong answers 99.999999% of the time? Something else? If you think that future observations will overthrow mainstream science, fine. Admit you've got nothing and bide your time until those observations show up. Don't hold your breath; people have been looking for those observations for hundreds of years … 99.9999999% of what they've turned up flat-out contradicts YEC and Noye's Fludde. The remainder is unexplained by any theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
A very important point, Reserve, that I trust JonF won't mind me repeating:
If your YEC "theory" does not have an explanation for that pattern your "theory" is hogwash.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? When the anomalies are explained by science based on observation, theory, prediction, test and validation. And by independent verification by replication of the results. That is how science works.
You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. Not the samples per se, the history of the area and the sediments the samples came from: if there are reasons to think the dates are suspect due to those factors then you TEST that concept by looking for variations in the dates for different parts and see if you can reproduce such errors. They did that. Then you look for ways to eliminate the conflicts that cause the erroneous dates. They did that. Then you see if what you get is consistent between different samples tested in different ways with those conflicts eliminated. They did that. Then you look at the results. They did that: the dates agreed between the different methods once the causes of errors had been removed. Do you really think the dates can be fudged to come out with whatever results one wants? If you do, then how do you explain all the dates that "just happen" to come out right the first time? Even on blind sample testing?
The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Nope. Else they would have stayed with Leakey's 2.6 million years eh?
Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Well ... as soon as there is a testable theory for how this could actually work ... and how it would explain all the evidence from all the different sources for the age of the earth ... then all this amounts to is mere handwaving in desperation while denying that the evidence shows consistent dates for an old earth. Don't hold your breath however. Let me reiterate -- the age of the earth by various non-radiometric methods, methods based on a number of different ways that annual sequences can be counted, ones that do not rely on radioactivity or rocket science to understand -- give these results:
These systems do not rely on radiometric dating methods, but on annual layers. Each one invalidates the YEC concept. Each one correlates with the others. You need to address ALL the information, not just isolated dating anomalies that even if they are correct STILL show that the earth is old. Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but avoiding it. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
F.J. Fitch and J.A. Miller, 'Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site', Nature 226, April 18, 1970, p. 226.
Total of three PDFs sent to your Yahoo account ... let me know if you got them (or didn't).
And send me a PDF? This has the old 200myr dates and should say why they are bad at the start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. Gottum. Doesn't look like any great surprises so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Dunno if this creo site has been linked before. A quick search for Laverna Patterson came up with naught in our archives. Got to give her credit for a well laid out, bright and easily-comprehensible (to believers) set of arguments.There are dating, Flood, moondust, Genesis, etc.,etc.segments--something for everyone. Mostly same old, but there were a couple of twists. Try it and we can dissect it.
Account Suspended
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Like the geology threads the dating ones seem to dim quickly. Interesting how the YECers can't debate when they can't find it on the web. Correlations are, to the best of my knowledge, never touched by creo websites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Interesting how the YECers can't debate when they can't find it on the web. Or something they have been told by some creatortionista culling the gullibles. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024