Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 31 of 153 (573348)
08-10-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:13 PM


You're not an archaeologist...
...you are a religious apologist.
I was hoping to have another archaeologist here.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:13 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 32 of 153 (573349)
08-11-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:13 PM


this is why secularists and atheists have so many problems, they think the truth changes but it doesn't. new data does not change the truth which is why so many scientists have problems with religion, they want to keep discoverying something that does not need discovering but lies in front of them all the time.
No one thinks truth changes, but what is thought to be truth can when evidence shows the truth is false. ie; Phlogiston was thought to be truth but was shown to be false by oxidation-reduction.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:13 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 33 of 153 (573351)
08-11-2010 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:13 PM


being independent doesn't mean they are all accurate or support the others' results
Yes, it does. The degree of freedom of a dating technique, after all, is all of the universe's past. When multiple, independent lines of evidence appear to converge on the same date, that can only be one of two things: an incredibly unlikely, vanishing coincidence; or the result of a legitimate physical quantity being measured. Occam's razor, the principle of parsimony, leads us to choose the reliability of our tests over the astronomically unlikely notion that they're all wrong but just happened, by luck, to agree.
the point is that to get the exact correct time there has to be one governing mechanism that states the correct time and if the users have problems with their time pieces then everyone will have the incorrect time.
If people's individual timepieces are broken, then it stands to reason that they'll all be broken in different ways, because they'll have broken for different reasons. Some will be faster. Some will be slower. Some won't be running at all. But when everybody's timepiece is shown to be keeping the same time, and everybody is known to have set their timepieces from different sources, that's a considerable weight of evidence for the current time.
Convergence of utterly random garbage data is so astronomically improbable that when we do see convergence, that indicates that the data is valid and not garbage. That's Bayes' Theorem - the significance of an outcome - the degree to which it is unlikely to have been produced by chance - is higher the less likely the outcome is.
so people use different time pieces to synchronize their clocks and watches but if those sources get their time from one that is wrong then everyone will still have the wrong time. it is possible and facts do not exclude this possibility.
But they don't get it from one. Facts can always exclude this possibility because we can trace sources and show that multiple lines of evidence are truly independent and not affected by each other.
even radio stations get it wrong
Yes. The fact that some people have the wrong time proves that they're not getting their time from the same ultimate source.
they can't date it even with the help of the dating systems as too many mitigating factors apply.
Nonsense. Tikaalik has been reliably dated by multiple, convergent lines of evidence - stratiography, radiometric, and molecular.
they think the truth changes but it doesn't.
The truth never changes, but our ideas about it - which are all that we can know - only become static when, like you, someone abandons the search for truth altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:13 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 153 (573353)
08-11-2010 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:13 PM


It is the custom of these forums to reply to one person at a time.
Being coherent is also preferable, but this may exceed your abilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:13 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 153 (573378)
08-11-2010 8:00 AM


you are a religious apologist
which means that you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear? there is nothing wrong with my point of view, it just doesn't agree with yours.
"I was hoping to have another archaeologist here."
i'm not professional but i have my share of legitimate degrees in the field.
"No one thinks truth changes, but what is thought to be truth can when evidence shows the truth is false. ie; Phlogiston was thought to be truth but was shown to be false by oxidation-reduction."
which is why you are not supposed to follow science, it cannot give the truth when you need it. it also isn't fair or just. you see that is what mkaes God and the ible so much better. what was true 5,000 years ago was still true 2,000 years ago an dis still true today. everyone has a chance of chooising and learning it and it is not in the hands of the elite few (scientists) it is accessible to everyone and one does not need advanced degrees to find it.
"Yes, it does. The degree of freedom of a dating technique, after all, is all of the universe's past."
but you miss the point, with time there is an ultimate govenor which does not fail in its duties and we can get the correct time even if all the time pieces in the world are wrong.
we cannot do that with the dating systems and their is no ultimate governor to synchronize with to obtain the correct dates.
being independent does not guarantee correctness nor support for other dating systems for each have their own vulnerabilities which come into play often.
"But when everybody's timepiece is shown to be keeping the same time, and everybody is known to have set their timepieces from different sources, that's a considerable weight of evidence for the current time."
right BUT that does not guarantee that their sources were fixed to the correct time or were in perfect working order and leaves the possibility that all time pieces can be incorrect at the same time.
"But they don't get it from one"
anyways this is getting off the track a bt, the analogy fails because the possibility of all clocks and watches being wrong is very real and possible which means that all dating systems can be wrong at the same time.
"Nonsense. Tikaalik has been reliably dated by multiple, convergent lines of evidence - stratiography, radiometric, and molecular"
please you include systems that are subjective which means very little when it comes to dating. oh i got it now, you are talking about the half fossil that some scientists claim could walk... ha ha ha that is a very bad example to use as i get a good laugh out of that one. talk about manufacturing a species to fit one's beliefs.
i do not like using wikipedia but it was handy:
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
they have about 3-6 inches of a skull and from their imaginations they have created this whole species. what a joke.
{i am trying to learn how to use this system but it seems complicated and time consuming so i may go back to the old fashioned way and just use quotes}
Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes, click on "Peek" to see how it is done. Open quote is [qs] and close quote is [/qs].

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 9:56 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 40 by Coragyps, posted 08-11-2010 10:03 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 153 (573380)
08-11-2010 8:04 AM


as an aside concerning the example of the fish which has beenused by one of the posters who disagrees with me, here is where the scientists and efvolutionists fail:
"Tikaalik roseae is a intermediary form between fish and modern amphibians."
{North-Central Texas Birds}
they cannot make the claim that this fish is an intermediary simply because all they have is a partial skull and no observation of it being produced by a lesser form and no observation of it changing into a superior form.
in other words all evolutionists have is the scientists' conjecture that this is a intermediary and no proof they are correct and no way to prove that they are correct.
this is what sinks evolution, it is built upon hearsay and wishful thinking and not by following the scientific priniciples held dear by secular scientists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 9:02 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 10:30 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2010 11:42 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 37 of 153 (573391)
08-11-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:04 AM


archaeologist writes:
they cannot make the claim that this fish is an intermediary simply because all they have is a partial skull and no observation of it being produced by a lesser form and no observation of it changing into a superior form.
in other words all evolutionists have is the scientists' conjecture that this is a intermediary and no proof they are correct and no way to prove that they are correct.
this is what sinks evolution, it is built upon hearsay and wishful thinking and not by following the scientific priniciples held dear by secular scientists.
Speaking to you as one Christian to another, you are talking absolute nonsense and only making Christians look stupid. Comments like "it being produced by a lesser form and no observation of it changing into a superior form" indicate that you have no idea of even the basics such as what Evolution is or what the Theory of Evolution says.
When you say really silly stuff like
quote:
which is why you are not supposed to follow science, it cannot give the truth when you need it. it also isn't fair or just. you see that is what mkaes God and the ible so much better. what was true 5,000 years ago was still true 2,000 years ago an dis still true today. everyone has a chance of chooising and learning it and it is not in the hands of the elite few (scientists) it is accessible to everyone and one does not need advanced degrees to find it.
you lose any credibility at all.
I am making the assumption that "ible" was meant to be Bible.
First off, no Bible existed 5000 years ago or even 2000 years ago. Second, even today there is no universal Canon, no such thing as "The Bible".
If you intend to debate here it is a good idea to start with facts that can be supported.
Next, to not use the brains god gave you and instead rely on an anthology of anthologies as an explanation of the world we see is an act of supreme hubris and a denial of god's gifts. It is nothing more than inflicting ignorance on our children.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:04 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 38 of 153 (573402)
08-11-2010 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 5:31 PM


this is my first post and i am trying to figure out how your system works so bear with me please... i am used to having a quote button as it makes things easier when quoting multiple people but i do not see one here so look for the "".
Quotes are really easy. A quote begins with [qs], and it ends with [/qs]. For example, this:
[qs]This is a quote.[/qs]
Will end up looking like this:
This is a quote.
If you want to include the name of the person the quote is from then just include the name in the opening quote after an "=" like this:
[qs=Moses]This is a quote.[/qs]
And that will end up looking like this:
Moses writes:
This is a quote.
Moving on to the rest of your post:
archaeologist writes:
Percy writes:
I really like this analogy. Your digital watch might be wrong, your friend's analog watch might be wrong, your other friend's watch synchronized to the signal from the National Bureau of Standards time signal might be wrong, your computer clock might be wrong, your grandfather's wind-up watch might be wrong, everyone else's watch in town might be wrong, but what would be the odds that they all give the same wrong time?
This position fails because it does not take into account the possibility that all people from the same town could set their watch by one central time piece. let's say the town square clock, for sake of argument.
So how is the real world like your analogy where everyone in town sets their clocks and watches according to one central clock? In the real world, what is the central clock for the many types of radiometric dating, geological layers, fossils, lake varves, glacial ice layers and tree rings?
in other words scientists ASSUME they have the correct date because all dating systems tell them what they want to hear...basically the dating systems are manipulated to fit the bias of the scientist doing the dating.
Ah, yes, the vast scientific conspiracy that happens to include many scientists who are Bible-believing Christians.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 5:31 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 39 of 153 (573411)
08-11-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:00 AM


So far signs point to
PRATTS, pratts and more pratts.
All of this has been discussed before. You might want to search this site for these very subjects. As of yet no Christian apologist has provided any evidence for their points on dating and evolution. All you have done so far is show that you have no idea what the TOE is even about.
Anyone to lazy or ignorant to insert an open quote and a close quote certainly does not have the fortitude or intellect to adequately and correctly discuss these subjects.
Just one quick hint. Don't believe what you read on the fundie websites or their books. They lie.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:00 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 40 of 153 (573412)
08-11-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:00 AM


what was true 5,000 years ago was still true 2,000 years ago and is still true today.
We still are excused from a murder conviction if we strike our slave but he lives a little while before dying? Lobsters are still an abomination?
Yes, that ^ goes in a different thread.
butfor most dating systems the half-life is too long to know if they are correct or not.
You don't know what a half life is, do you, Archaeologist? Is it necessary to drive a car for an hour down a straight highway to tell if it is going 65 mph? No? Neither is it necessary to hold a lump of carbon-14 for 5730 years to determine its half-life.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:00 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 41 of 153 (573419)
08-11-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:04 AM


archaeologist??!! writes:
they cannot make the claim that this fish is an intermediary simply because all they have is a partial skull.......
Really?
They have a lot more than a partial skull. This is just one of the three found.
.......and no observation of it being produced by a lesser form and no observation of it changing into a superior form.
It is not a question of "lesser" or "superior".
They have preceding fish "forms", and later amphibian "forms" like Ichthyostega.
Tiktaalik has fins with wrists and simple digits. Fin/legs are a good illustration of transition.
{ABE} Realising that the topic is dating, I'll add that the discoverers of Tiktaalik were deliberately looking for such a creature in rocks that they knew were dated to the right period, demonstrating the validity of the dating.
Edited by bluegenes, : relating post to topic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:04 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 153 (573426)
08-11-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:04 AM


no observation of it being produced by a lesser form and no observation of it changing into a superior form.
You understand that it's a fossil, right? It's dead bones? It's not even bone anymore, it's the mineralized remains of bones.
Why would it change into anything? That makes no sense. Dead things don't evolve, living populations do.
in other words all evolutionists have is the scientists' conjecture that this is a intermediary
It's not conjecture. It's observation. You can look at the fossil and see that, objectively, it has intermediate, transitional characteristics between fish and amphibians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:04 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 153 (573494)
08-11-2010 5:29 PM


Speaking to you as one Christian to another,
your post denies this claim. i never claimed to be a great typist or editor so lay off the typos.
no Bible existed 5000 years ago or even 2000 years ago. Second, even today there is no universal Canon, no such thing as "The Bible
this shows your unbelief and limitation in thinking. God's word has always been around and did not need to be put into a 'canon' to be in effect. how do you think God wouod be able to punish cain if His words were not already known?
to not use the brains god gave you and instead rely on an anthology of anthologies as an explanation of the world we see is an act of supreme hubris and a denial of god's gifts. It is nothing more than inflicting ignorance on our children
using one's brain does not entail deciding to follow after secular teachings that contradict the Bible and claim things that Jesus and the disciples did not teach. in fact the Bible is very clear about not following secular people as they are deceived and being deceived. no true christian would accept any secular teaching especially when it calls the God they love a liar.
So how is the real world like your analogy where everyone in town sets their clocks and watches according to one central clock? In the real world, what is the central clock for the many types of radiometric dating, geological layers, fossils, lake varves, glacial ice layers and tree rings?
as i said there is no central governor for the dating systems and no ultimate time piece to synchronize their works. let's try another example. independent countries do not synchronize their governments with other nations if they want to remain independent. they run according to their beliefs and theirs alone. if they so happen to agree on one international statement that does not mean the statement is true or that their method is without error.
As of yet no Christian apologist has provided any evidence for their points on dating and evolution.
actually we all have the problem lies with the fact that you all do not accept what is presented or attribute it to something else. i have already presented the nursery evidence and someone has already attributed that to nature, so the problem does not lie with the christian but the unbeliever who rejects the evidence presented.
your insult is ignored as it shows your lack of integrity and character and does nothing to me. i just put it down that you are all typical americans.
We still are excused from a murder conviction if we strike our slave but he lives a little while before dying? Lobsters are still an abomination?
don't use examples that you do not understand nor are willing to listen to the correct explanation.
You don't know what a half life is, do you,
if i had a dime for every one of these comments i read i could retire. actually i do andif you noticed i said 'most' not 'all' as , for example, c-14 has a half-life of 5,600 years approx while another has a lot less. others have millions of years and i will say this for most of these half-lifes people do not live long enough to see if they are correct.
oh and if you want to refute me, post a link to libby's papers which talk about his analysis of the half life in c-14.
Really?
if you looked at the link i had posted you would have seen the pictures of what i had to deal with when i made those comments.i had forgotten about your picture but still it is incomplete and does not show what you think it does.
They have preceding fish "forms", and later amphibian "forms" like Ichthyostega.
Tiktaalik has fins with wrists and simple digits. Fin/legs are a good illustration of transition.
you can read anything you want into old bones but nothing in the fossils indicates that there was a transformation in progress. all evolutionary transformation is purely eisogetic, the scientist reads into the artifact what he wants to see yet he/she cannot prove that those differences were the result of the evolutionary process. it is all conjecture and wishful thinking not observation.
the only observation going on is seeing a fossil that had a different structure than another fossil which is not evidence for evolution for it could be evidence that God created different fish with different designs, just like we have today.
Realising that the topic is dating, I'll add that the discoverers of Tiktaalik were deliberately looking for such a creature in rocks that they knew were dated to the right period, demonstrating the validity of the dating
and they dfound what they were looking for whether it really is one or not. let me quote dr. ratzsch again:
Human perception seems to some degree to be active and science does not seem to be immune to that aspect of the human condition...In the 1880s Thomas Huxley...worked on a newly discovered entity sort of halfway between dead matter and living organism known as Bathybius haeckelii. Huxley and others believed that there had to be such an organism and its discovery was no particular surprise...There were numerous observational confirmations concerning this organism. Its existence was not even controversial in some circles. But other scientists with the same equipment and techniques, but without Huxley's mindset, could see nothing like an organism at all and indeed categorized it as purely mineral...
pg. 123
there are more examples on that page by the way. evolutionists see what they want to see even if it isn't there.
You understand that it's a fossil, right? It's dead bones? It's not even bone anymore, it's the mineralized remains of bones.
Why would it change into anything? That makes no sense. Dead things don't evolve, living populations do.
well you totally missed the point and start talking about absurd things i never said so i will ignore you.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 5:49 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 45 by Dogmafood, posted 08-11-2010 5:53 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2010 5:59 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 6:02 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 6:05 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 44 of 153 (573500)
08-11-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 5:29 PM


Mess
Could you please sort this mess out, archaeologist?
Close quote boxes with [/qs], and preferably divide the post into separate replies to each of the posts you're replying to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 5:29 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 45 of 153 (573501)
08-11-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 5:29 PM


no true christian would accept any secular teaching especially when it calls the God they love a liar
If this applies to you then you really have no place in a discussion based on facts and logic. I think this is referred to as suspension of disbelief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 5:29 PM archaeologist 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