Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 269 (45748)
07-11-2003 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by nator
07-11-2003 10:24 AM


quote:
I think it is truly a pity that your religion requires you to choose blind adherence to a particular interpretation of a few chapters in the Christian Bible over the rather unambiguous data collected from nature, right in front of you.
Does God really want you to ignore reality? Does God really put more importance upon slavish adherence to a story than your ability to use your own eyes and intellect?
My religion if totally voluntary, admonishing me to follow truth. You've read my response to Percy, I would assume. My voluntary adherence to my religion is not blind as I have tried to convey in that post.
Your faith in what mere man says happened millions of years ago based on his fallible unproven processes is much greater than what it takes to look at recorded history, what is happening in modern times and correlate these to Biblical prophecy, as well as present personal experiences which substantiate the existence of God. The latter I can't prove to you, but the prophecies are the evidence you all choose to ignore in your blind adherence to the game of hiding all the flaws and possibilities of error in scores of millions to billions of years where nobody's been to verify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by nator, posted 07-11-2003 10:24 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 07-11-2003 11:37 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 198 of 269 (45749)
07-11-2003 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 10:48 AM


buzsaw writes:
My voluntary adherence to my religion is not blind as I have tried to convey in that post.
This claim that your religion is not blind would have more credibility were it not for your frequent arbitrary dismissal of evidence without any understanding or assessment. I guess faith can not only move mountains, it can ignore mountains, too.
Your faith in what mere man says...
You have the same faith, but with far less justification. Science establishes confidence through replicability - only when many scientists repeat the same experiment and obtain the same results is the outcome accepted. You're accepting the word of Carl Baugh and Ron Wyatt whose assertions have only tiny islands of support and which are opposed by many within the Creationist movement. You're also accepting "what mere man says" in the Bible as if it were instead written by the Lord God himself. Were the men who wrote the Bible inspired by God? Perhaps, but isn't it mere men who told you so?
You can't escape the fact that all information you have comes from only one source: mere man.
I'd like to see you finally address the question about how different radiometric methods could produce congruent results if radiometric dating were fallacious.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 10:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 269 (45754)
07-11-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
07-11-2003 9:20 AM


quote:
The Tower of Babel was post-flood, so it isn't relevant to a pre-flood hammer. As I stated earlier, not only is there no evidence of ironwork in your flood era, there is no evidence of ironwork anywhere in the pre-Columbus Americas.
The people weren't scattered and dispersed until Babel. Possibly that's when the Americas became inhabited post flood and the Indian nations were possibly not of the ironworking group. I'm not claiming to know. That's why I use the word, "possibly." Neither does anyone else know for sure. [quote] Where is the imperative that if evolution is true your religious experiences are false? I think you've set up a false dichotomy here.[quote] I'm not even suggesting anyone but me should believe my personal experiences, though they are very significant to me, but no excuse for anyone ignoring the prophecies with their remarkable track record. The track record of the prophecies alone lend support to the rest of the record including the Tubal-cain story.
As for the bellows technology, it's just not that complicated. Everytime you blow your breath from your mouth bellows to get a fire going hotter, you've demonstrated that simple feat.
I'm not being specific because I don't know the specifics. I would imagine some iron ores such as meteor pieces are easily detected as a metal. Likely the ironworkers were near or at sites where iron was easily identified and obtained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 07-11-2003 9:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 07-11-2003 2:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 200 of 269 (45755)
07-11-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 1:55 PM


I'm not even suggesting anyone but me should believe my personal experiences,...
Hmmm. Maybe this explains why there seems to be such a disconnect about evidence in the discussions with you. Are you saying that you're not trying to convince anyone, but are only explaining why you *personally* do not accept the evidence presented to you, and that you're not encouraging anyone else to reject the evidence on the same basis that you are?
...but no excuse for anyone ignoring the prophecies with their remarkable track record. The track record of the prophecies alone lend support to the rest of the record including the Tubal-cain story.
I don't think you can make any claims about prophecy until you complete the discussion you've left hanging in Message 34 in the Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy thread. Or are you simply abandoning this topic the same way you abandoned Frozen Tropical Animals and Buz's seashell claim.
[Added a 2nd abandoned thread and changed to URLs. --Percy]
As for the bellows technology, it's just not that complicated. Everytime you blow your breath from your mouth bellows to get a fire going hotter, you've demonstrated that simple feat.
I'm sure that even a couple million years ago that Australopithicus afarensis was aware of this, but you still have two problems:
  1. Your argument is one from personal incredulity and so carries no weight.
  2. You're ignoring the details. Once again:
    First men had to figure out that this crumbly orange rock actually contains a very hard metal. The only way to do that is to create the incredible heat necessary to melt the iron out of the ore. The only way to create the heat is to use bellows (which require making airtight flexible containers using levers) to blast air in sufficient volumes into the furnace. Since this isn't necessary for bronze, why would anyone put in all the effort to develop this technology? Why especially they would try this on the orange crumbly rock? How man first figured out that iron ore contained iron remains a mystery.
    Why don't you address these points in your next reply, Buzz, assuming your goal isn't to simply wear me out by making me repeatedly cut-n-paste the same info into all my replies
Moving on:
I'm not being specific because I don't know the specifics. I would imagine some iron ores such as meteor pieces are easily detected as a metal. Likely the ironworkers were near or at sites where iron was easily identified and obtained.
You're replying piecemeal now. As I pointed out already, your date for Tubal-cain predates both the iron age *and* the bronze age. You can argue that Tubal-cain worked iron from meteorites or any other naturally occurring iron, but not that he mined and smelted iron. And you can't argue that he worked bronze at all, since it doesn't occur naturally, unless you modify your 3900 BC date to some 600 years later.
You're also ignoring the other evidence I presented to you, which is that the mines and foundries for metals are very durable and easily dated. We don't find them until well after your date for the flood. Why do you think that is, Buzz? What happened to the mines and foundries of earlier civilizations? Are they hiding somewhere?
You ignored the most important point from my Message 195, the extended point that you should be trying to stake out a position that isn't in conflict with so much history and science, and that hitching your wagon to Carl's train isn't what you set out to do. It's just something you found in passing to help make a different point. You set out trying to support your views on the flood, and the next thing you know you're trying to defend crazy Carl's hammer. You should give at least as much weight to scientific evidence as you do for the loons of this world. Ever heard of Art Bell (http://www.coasttocoastam.com, now hosted by George Noory after Bell retired)? Well, Carl Baugh is a religious Art Bell - there isn't any idea so crazy he won't give it space in his museum or at his website.
So, come on, Buzz, speak to me. Why are you so insistent on turning God's universe into a circus of contradictions just so you can maintain your belief in the words of mere men contained in the Bible?
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 1:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2003 3:00 PM Percy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 201 of 269 (45756)
07-11-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
07-11-2003 2:45 PM


I think that Buz is doing a good job of showing us the creationist mentality.
His starting point is that his beleifs - or a significant subset of them - are infallibly true. And that includes the arguments used to support those beleifs - even if they are complete fabrications. Everything else has to be forced to fit (and judging from the behaviour of other creationists that includes the Bible).
Anything that can't be forced to fit is ignored - after all it can't be important if it contradicts "the truth".
And they can't even see that they are closed minded dogmatists who put themselves - according to their own beliefs - above God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 07-11-2003 2:45 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Brad McFall, posted 07-11-2003 3:05 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 203 by JonF, posted 07-11-2003 3:43 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 202 of 269 (45757)
07-11-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by PaulK
07-11-2003 3:00 PM


I find that isolating such a "mentality" funny. I was not even sure that this is indeed not but "would the real Buz please stand up" kind of a thing that still would not matter which "side" was being considered. Somehow it must be thought then that by the dark background one can "sneak" up on a "creationist mentality" easier on P's site that is so far out of sight on any other cite I know of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2003 3:00 PM PaulK has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 203 of 269 (45763)
07-11-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by PaulK
07-11-2003 3:00 PM


quote:
I think that Buz is doing a good job of showing us the creationist mentality.
Yup, a clear case of Morton's Demon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2003 3:00 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by nator, posted 07-11-2003 11:00 PM JonF has not replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 269 (45767)
07-11-2003 5:05 PM


Slightly off topic, but I don't think the concept of blowing on a fire to make it hotter is by any means obvious. It only seems obvious to us because we've been exposed to fire most of our lives.
-Neil

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 205 of 269 (45773)
07-11-2003 5:38 PM


Buz,
Getting back on topic, can you please explain why radiometric dating is too unreliable for use, yet most dates correlate?
Mark

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-11-2003 5:50 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 206 of 269 (45775)
07-11-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by mark24
07-11-2003 5:38 PM


Not that I wish to pick on Buz, or anyone else - But perhaps it's time to start deleting off-topic messages.
Buz, others - Please focus on the question Mark has just restated.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by mark24, posted 07-11-2003 5:38 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 269 (45781)
07-11-2003 9:28 PM


To sumarize my argument in this thread I submit the following:
1. Nobody knows the unknowns so far as the elements used in dating go in the timespan of scores of millions to billions of years ago. All scientists can go on is the status quo and what is observed today.
2. The Biblical track record for history/prophecy/fulfillment harmony is quite remarkable and lends credence to the rest of the Biblical record.
3. If the earth is old and life young, fossils created by sudden catastrophy would be entombed in old material rendering dating methods useless because of the contamination of the new by the old it is entombed in.
4. Possibly some unknowns of past milleniums explain the success of harmony in some multiple dating methods because the same unknowns including the supernaturalism factors that affect one method may affect the other methods also causing error in all methods.
That's about it for a sumary of my argument and I've not much else to offer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by nator, posted 07-11-2003 11:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 210 by Rrhain, posted 07-11-2003 11:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 212 by mark24, posted 07-12-2003 4:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2003 7:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 07-12-2003 10:28 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 215 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-13-2003 9:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 234 by Rei, posted 09-17-2003 6:45 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 208 of 269 (45794)
07-11-2003 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by JonF
07-11-2003 3:43 PM


Wow, that is a really poignant essay about Creationist's mental "information gatekeepers".
I hadan't read that one before. It's really good, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by JonF, posted 07-11-2003 3:43 PM JonF has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 209 of 269 (45796)
07-11-2003 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 9:28 PM


quote:
4. Possibly some unknowns of past milleniums explain the success of harmony in some multiple dating methods because the same unknowns including the supernaturalism factors that affect one method may affect the other methods also causing error in all methods.
Am I to understand that you think it is less likely that all of the dozen or so radiometric dating methods are giving consistent results among each other over the thousands of thousands of samples tested over decades, than it is likely that there is a whole bunch of stuff about radioactive decay that we don't know, including magical "supernaturalisms", that just HAPPENS to work out in such a way as to coincidentally LOOK AS THOUGH THE EARTH WAS OLD?
Isn't it the conclusion of a rational, reasonable person, by contrast, that the reason the various methods return matching dates is BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIABLE?
The above "explanation" of yours, Buz, is the most tortured and convoluted I have seen in a long time. Doesn't it hurt to twist your mind around like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 210 of 269 (45797)
07-11-2003 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
07-11-2003 9:28 PM


buzsaw writes:
quote:
1. Nobody knows the unknowns so far as the elements used in dating go in the timespan of scores of millions to billions of years ago. All scientists can go on is the status quo and what is observed today.
Of course. That's one of the first tenets of science: Don't make stuff up. You can only go with the information you have. Since we have been unable to find any particular method by which radioactive decay can change rates, we don't get to just make up the opinion that it can.
quote:
2. The Biblical track record for history/prophecy/fulfillment harmony is quite remarkable and lends credence to the rest of the Biblical record.
I'm not sure you want to use this as an argument. The track record for history/prophecy/fulfillment harmony in the Bible is quite remarkable in its failure. If you're going to base the credibility of the rest of the Bible on this, then one wonders why you think the Bible has any credibility at all.
quote:
3. If the earth is old and life young, fossils created by sudden catastrophy would be entombed in old material rendering dating methods useless because of the contamination of the new by the old it is entombed in.
Not without completely destroying the material in the process.
That is, if I have a lovely pan of lasagne and I want to embed a quarter in it just above the bottom layer of pasta after it's been baked, I'm going to have to destroy at least some of the lasagne in order to get to it. And if we use a catastrophic method such as a flood in order to gain access to the lower layers, there's no way I'm going to get a pristine pan of lasagne when I'm done.
Therefore, if we find a quarter in a pristine pan of lasagne, we necessarily conclude that it was placed in the dish beforehand, not afterward.
quote:
4. Possibly some unknowns of past milleniums explain the success of harmony in some multiple dating methods because the same unknowns including the supernaturalism factors that affect one method may affect the other methods also causing error in all methods.
This is the same error of your first point. You don't get to make stuff up. We have a situation that seems quite reasonable (multiple, independent methods converge on a single date, thus the date is quite likely to be accurate) and your response is that no, there is something, you don't know what but you know that there has to be something, that is making them all wrong in the same way. Never mind that this error would only be useful for a single date since the distortions would lead to conflicting results for other dates (non-identical curves have at least one point of incongruity.)
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 07-11-2003 9:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2003 12:00 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 211 of 269 (45805)
07-12-2003 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Rrhain
07-11-2003 11:22 PM


That is, if I have a lovely pan of lasagne and I want to embed a quarter in it just above the bottom layer of pasta after it's been baked, I'm going to have to destroy at least some of the lasagne in order to get to it. And if we use a catastrophic method such as a flood in order to gain access to the lower layers, there's no way I'm going to get a pristine pan of lasagne when I'm done.
Therefore, if we find a quarter in a pristine pan of lasagne, we necessarily conclude that it was placed in the dish beforehand, not afterward.
That's a great example. Similarly, that's how we know when a man has been shot, rather than assuming he was born with a bullet in his chest and had a heart attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Rrhain, posted 07-11-2003 11:22 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024