Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

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.

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?

quote:

---

In effect one is censored for participation in scientific discussion without an acceptable amount of established cohesive academia thought,

---

Or, put another way, in a scientific discussion, one is required to back up, with vertifiable, high-quality evidence, what one claims.It would be one thing if you came into the discussion admitting that you don't know some things, but this is not what you have done.You write in very definitive terms, as if you are an expert and as if you know a great deal about the subjects under discussion. You then get called to the caret for shooting your mouth off about things you have no understanding of.Why is this so strange to you?

quote:

---

or if one resorts to common sense and on occasion the supernatural factor, some of which on occasion collides with naturalistic scientific theory.

---

Common sense led people to believe for many centuries that us that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us and that demons caused mental illness.The scientific method is designed to compensate for the great limitations of our "common sense".As for your "supernaturalisms", you are free to believe in magical solutions to the factual and logical holes you dig yourself into, but then we are not having a scientific discussion any longer.If you want to claim the power of science, then you have to play by the rules of science.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-14-2003]

quote:

---

That said, I feel the evo's would mostly agree on a single question to be answered, I say this so Buz can answer this salient point, rather than feel he has to respond to a half dozen of us saying essentially the same thing. Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too? Would everyone agree?

---

Yes, I completely agree that this is the most important question for Buz to answer.I'd also like to remind Buz that this is essentially the original question of this thread, and was a response to Buz's claim that all radiometric dating methods were bogus....just want it clear that this is a response to a claim.

quote:

---

I did attend three semesters at Bob Jones University

---

Well, THAT explains a great deal.

quote:

---

I see the word "possibility" twice in your post and these possibilities seem to be much of the drive of scientists in some of their theories and assumptions which find their ways into our textbooks and manuals.

---

So, you admit to not understanding the "nuts and bolts" (i.e. the basics) of these dating methds, but disbelieve them all because of the use of the word "possibilities" is used twice in a short layman-level explanation of two methods??You must get pretty sore from all of the twisting and contorting, don't you?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-18-2003]

I'm not fighting.I'm debating.(OK, sometimes I poke him with a pointy stick a little bit.)Anyway, Buz just says some of the most outlandish things and I then challenge him to support what he says.He generally does not respond to me any more. I wonder why that is?

quote:

---

1. You were apprised at the onset that I've no diploma above high school. Now you're spinning that to make it look like I'm finally admitting to be uneducated in these things.

---

Well, why did you bring up your education if you didn't think it relevant. I certainly seemed to me that you were pretty clearly saying that because you have no degree above high school you don't understand the "nuts and bolts" of the dating methods.This is, I surmised, why you did not respond directly to Rei's specific example and instead said that you only had a high school education.

quote:

---

2. Now that I comment on someone's word "possibilities," you're trying to spin that into being my primary argument for questioning the dating methods and others are echoing you.

---

Well, that WAS the only comment you made in response to Rei's explanation of the specific dating method. I do not think it unreasonable to surmise that this was the best rebuttal you could provide, considering you had nothing else to say.

quote:

---

3. The reason I posted post 235 is to clarify that my premise was not so much that the methods were bogus in themselves as your title is implying, but that conditions not actually proven and unable to be proven to exist millions and billions of years ago may cause a false/bogus reading.

---

...and this has been addressed ad nauseum in this and other threads. You simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.Simply answer the following, Buz;1) How can all the various dating methods be bogus/inaccurate in such a way as to return amazingly consistent results between and among all methods?2) What is your evidence that decay rates were significantly different in the past than they are today?

quote:

---

After all, as a creationist and student of the Bible, I have ample evidence that it is a supernatural book by the record of fulfilled prophecy and other things.

---

Perhaps you missed my message to you a page or two ago in this thread.Please choose one or two unambiguous prophecies which you consider to have been fulfilled and list them here.Please include non-Biblical evidence (i.e. independent evidence) as evidence.

quote:

---

Also, if it was all created and Adam was created with the appearance of age, nobody knows what else was created with the appearance of age.

---

So, God is a deceiver?

quote:

---

My position has always been that the earth itself is not necessarily young, but that all living creatures were created about 6000 years ago. None of us, nor anyone else was actually around way back when, so nothing can be set in stone in this debate, imo.

---

We have tree ring chronologies dating back 10,000 years.How do you explain this?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-19-2003]