Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 153 (573924)
08-13-2010 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Otto Tellick
08-13-2010 1:40 AM


BTW, you might not have noticed how this religious-dogma-causes-self-contradiction stuff actually stems from the Bible itself. For an easy start on this, there are lots of entertaining and informative videos at YouTube about contradictions in the Bible.
there are no contradictions in the Bible. such are raised by people who are unbelievers and do not grasp what the Bible is saying and who refuse to listen to any explanation clearing the matter up.
it is easy to claim their are contradictions but difficult to accept the truthful explanations when that truth shreds your arguments.
so far the majorityof you all have done nothing but posted arguments i have heard and answered for years. your reactions are the exact same as other atheists and anti-bible people and you have done nothing new.
since this is a science forum , here is a challenge to you:
post all the archaeological and scientific discoveries that prove the bible false. they have to be real, sans conjecture, wishful thinking, assumption, hypothesis and theory.
plus i am waiting for the links to libby's papers dealing with the decline rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-13-2010 1:40 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 7:51 AM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 153 (573939)
08-13-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Huntard
08-13-2010 7:51 AM


Yes there are.
chapters and verses please.
yet it seems you haven't learned anything from that. Of course we don't do anything new, your assertions are just as wrong now as they were then.
yet i have learned something and that is the anti-bible crowd are backing the wrong horse.
remember i have found the truth and do not need to search any more.
Ooh.
didn't think you would do it and i do not think anyone else here will either buti have to remain scientific which is hard to do given that origins is about faith not scientific evidence. same with the dating systems.
you can date all you want but just becuas eyou or your fellow scientists declare them accurate and correct doesn't mean they are. one has to consider the source and isn't it convenient that the people supporting evoolution also built the dating systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 7:51 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 8:09 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 83 by Larni, posted 08-13-2010 8:43 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 153 (574029)
08-13-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coragyps
08-13-2010 9:16 AM


Erosion. It is an English word with an actual definition. An actual archaeologist might even be familiar with the definition. You, though, don't seem to be aware of it.
ignoring the insinuating tone, that word explains why that particular poster cannot make the claim that all dinosuar skeletons and bones are found in 60,000,000 rock and dirt. also just because the bones are found there doesn't mean that the dinosuars lived only at that time, remember that very few animals get fossilized and it would be erroneous to make such a generalization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 9:16 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:25 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 08-13-2010 5:56 PM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 153 (574030)
08-13-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by shalamabobbi
08-13-2010 12:25 PM


If you disagree I will discuss it in more detail IF you do your homework and actually read and demonstrate that you comprehend the references listed.
why would i do what you want? i already comprehend the dating systems and know they are wrong and err too much to be reliable. i also know about talk origins and you are asking me to read bias information that tells you what you want to hear and is not truthful.
put some independent studies out there by non-evolutionists then maybe i might read them. you do not want me putting creatinist material onhere so do not expect me to accept or respect the materials that side with you.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-13-2010 12:25 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by subbie, posted 08-13-2010 5:20 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 6:21 PM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 153 (574032)
08-13-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
08-13-2010 9:55 AM


Time after time the same results are returned.
The earth is old.
i generally ignore you as you just post the party line and present no legitimate evidence to support your case. but created with age does not mean God is lying to people, it means that that was the best place to start thus the secular dating systems fail to take this mitigating factor into account.
remember my example of the table and the tablemaker, it fails a little because God didn't use old material but the gist is on point. if the scientific sensors are geared to analyze one aspect then it is too limited to grasp the whole picture and present the true date.
calibrating against tree rings does not make the date correct, it just means that you got like minded people to agree with your assessment, much like you would accuse me of doing if i presented many creationist papers in support of my arguments.
you cannot have it both ways,either my information in support is as valid as yours is for you or neither can be used because both are biased and do not paint the true picture, except with christians, {for the most part and i will stipulate that there are SOME creationists out there who will fudge details} we generally present the truth.
now concerning the age, as i havesaid, God did not say WHEN the earth was created andwhen God keeps a secret it is impossible for anyone to find out what it really is. science cannot discover it because origins is outside of its scope and not part of its authority and because it has no way to verify that it is correct.
i do not agree with the 6,000 year date but i do not agree with the old earth theories either, i do not know when the earth and universe were created because if you will note, human time was created AFTER the earth and universe, rendering any determination of age impossible.
science is not correct and neither is the 6,000 year old date, which by the way was claimed by a roman catholic bishop who didnot know God thus his date is as useless as the evolutionary one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 9:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:34 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 5:52 PM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 153 (574035)
08-13-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by subbie
08-13-2010 5:20 PM


Why is it that virtually the entire scientific establishment, many of whom worship the same god that you do, accepts the accuracy of everything that you are arguing against?
asked and answered but i will tell you one more time: people have free choice and they get to choose whether to follow God or not, believe Him or not thus it is very unlikely that those who reject the Bible will accept biblical data.
why would those who have staked their lives trying to prove an alternative true, side with teh Biblical data?
and one point, it is not 'virtually the whole scientifi community' there are a great number who do not accept evolutionary dating and accept the anti-evolutinary side of theargument.
P.S. i do not think nor accept theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists as christian. you cannot have a loving relationship with someone you call a liar and said got it wrong.
also as an aside, wich kind of God would you want to serve--one that demonstrates His power for all to see which shows that no one is greater and stronger than He or a god who is incapable of such feats and can be seen as weak, a liar and unable to do anything?
which one would you feel the most secure with?
that is a scientific question as it appeals to your logical and rational side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by subbie, posted 08-13-2010 5:20 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:39 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 98 by subbie, posted 08-13-2010 5:50 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 153 (574040)
08-13-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taq
08-13-2010 5:25 PM


Then why don't we find any dinosaur bones from other times
we do, but as demonstrated by another poster, the excuses come up to defend a theory that cannot be defended.
Why do we find this correlation between dinosaur bones and the ratio of isotopes in the surrounding rocks
the isotopes are in the rocks NOT the skeleton thus the rocks may be older than the skeleton and it seems you are tryingto apply circular reasoning here, the skeletonis old because it is in old rocks and the rocks are old because the skeleton is there.
there are too many reasons why a young skeleton could be among supposely old rocks. unfortunately your side does not consider them.
If radiometric dating is as awful as you suggest then why don't we find rabbits in between igneous rocks that date to 3 billion years old
you know the answer to that as well as i do--not every animal fossilizes, excuses are made, they just haven't been discovered yet and so on. pick one and you have your answer.
here is a quote from a book you may not accept:
1. editors of the catalogue recognized that there were gaps in their coverage of the fossil material They appealed to their readers to help them track down unreported fossil discoveries. {provenance may have been ruined with this act-my comment not the author's}However, some legitimate fossils that would strengthen the creationist position were omitted. A basic question needs to be asked, but ihave never heard anyone ask it. To justify science as a superior worldview, {the late carl}Sagan cites situations in the history of science where the self-correcting mechanism has worked. However, the question is not whether this self-correcting mechanism has worked once, twice, a undred times or a thousand times. The basic question is, How efficient is science as a self-correcting mechanism? or What is the batting average of science in this area? or Out of the total number of mistakes made in science, how many have been corrected?
When we put the question this way, it is obvious that there i sno way of knowinf the total number of mistakes made in thehistory of science. Nor do we know how many uncorrected errors exist in science today. if we knew about them, they would be corrected. Hence it is impossible to know how efficient this self-corrrecting element in science is. But if there is no way to determine its effectiveness, then we can never know if trusting science to lead us to the truth is a very wise worldview or a very foolish one. We all agree that, according to its methods, science could be somewhat self-correcting. But we are not living in a perfect world.
{pg. 51}
so, do any of you have legitimate, sioncere, and honest answers to that question?
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 153 (574047)
08-13-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Taq
08-13-2010 5:34 PM


Then here is the evidence. On this page you can find dozens of meteorites that have been dated using a multitude of different techniques and isotope pairs and they all return nearly the same date. Can you explain why this is?
havng the same date does not mean they originated at that time. you can have 5 different, independent people examine different objects and all agree to the date of each object but the problem is it is still an assumption.
why? 1. because the material dated may not have originated as thought. a different method was employed. 2. the objects may not have started with the ideal or accepted amount of isotopes needed to get a date; 3. given their life conditions, the decline rate may not have proceeded as pre-determined for those isotopes; 4. what situations did those objects endure that would have corrupted the sampe and the daters are unaware of the corruption; 5. there is no way to verify that those dating systems are correct in their assessment. calibrating them against each other is just the same as one evolutionist going to another evolutionist to agree on the evolutionary theory. you do not have independent investigators doing the work who are free from bias or unobjectivity.
also you have no ancient corroborration that the material tested is the same date as the objects tested, you are testing from the same vantage point, the present thus with no ancient corrobborration, the dates are just an assumption or speculation.
i could go on but the dates like the following quote are mere assumptions even though you have multiple dating systems agreeing:
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age
the bolded parts are a very big assumption and cannot be verified nor confirmed. such conclusions mean nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 5:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 08-13-2010 6:40 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 7:08 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2010 9:31 PM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 153 (574049)
08-13-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
08-13-2010 5:56 PM


So you can dispute the dating of the rocks if you want but you can't really use the fact that they're on the surface as an indication of young age.
and you cannot use the fact that they are found in supposedly 60,000,000 ear old rocks as an indication of old age.
it works both ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 08-13-2010 5:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 6:57 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 08-13-2010 7:01 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 153 (574050)
08-13-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coragyps
08-13-2010 6:21 PM


Who doesn't want you to? You've been asked for references many times in your few days here and have supplied a couple to your own website. Well, that and, "I think I read that in a newspaper somewhere." Go ahead! Put some "creatinist material onhere" and see what happens next! It would be more than welcome!
i put quite a few in my posts and yes, some are done from memory because the source can't be found but usually i give all the details so you know they are legitimate and not made up.
as for the ones from news stories, that is common knowledge and if people have read them and deny it, well that is up to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 6:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 153 (574051)
08-13-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
08-13-2010 5:52 PM


Science is how we found out that the Biblical Flood never happened, remember?
this is a fallacy and untrue. given that we cannot dig up the whole world to get uiform evidence, given that we would not know what noah's flood evidence would look like, given that we do not know what the pre-flood geography was like, given that the many natural disasters, volcanoes, earthquakes, local floods etc, would change the evidence insome way, given the many wars and their destructive nature would affect the evidence, given that construction and marching of armies, migrating people would alter the evidence in some way, given that approx. 3,500 years have transpired since the event---just what kind of evidence do you think science would find in the modern age?
let's put it in simple and realistic terms, you just do not want to believe in & obey God, use faith, or agree with the Bible so you use a limited field like science to provide your excuses or justifications to live the life you want.
just be a man and say you do not want to follow God and be done with it. at least that can be respected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 5:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 6:44 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2010 7:09 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 153 (574087)
08-13-2010 11:37 PM


And why can they not be confirmed? If a particular rock structure is dated by Uranium Dating, Ar/Ar Dating & K/Ar Dating and the same figure of 60 million years is found by all three methods than it would be logical to assume that the rock is at least 60 million years old and thus the earth would have to be at least the same age. This is not a big assumption at all.
i have already illustrated this but let's go back to the example of the tablemaker. if he is still alive, he can pinpoint a start date to guage age, he could say that he built it 30 years ago, 50 years ago or 5 and we could determine the age correctly.
but if the tablemaker dies and someone owns the table who did not know him, nor know any of the details of construction and tries to sell it. when asked how old it is, he would say i do not know, i bought it at .....
so they decide to date it but since the maker is no longer available they try other methods and they use 3-4 different methods and they all agree that the wood is 50 years old but that does not mean that the table is 50 years old, just that when the wood was cut it had reached the age of 50 bt when it was turned into a table is anyone's guess because the dating methods were too limited and did not cover all the variables.
plus there is no start date to help, thus only assumptions can be made regardless of how accurate the dating methods used are. you cannot date backwards, there are just too many problems to overcome and one has to start with assumptions not fact.
even if all dating systems agree, they still could be and probably are wrong. the main problem with libby's work and other systems is that they deal with the ideal and there is no way possible to tell how many isotopes are in the speciman at their origin or how many really did exit throughout their life and after.
if all dating systems agree, then i would think that there was collusion, pre-programming done to ensure a certain date was selected or there was a problem somewhere else down the line because like-minded people developed all the dating systems from their bias, men who are not perfect and have no reason to want to prove the Bible true.
claiming that because all dating systems agree is like a being in a store that has a cash register that has vulnerabilities and the customer is over-charged. when the customer realizes it, the storekeeper goes, well use my other cash register and when the same price pops up as the first, the storekeeper goes, see i didn't over-charge you.
sorry but basically all you are doiong is using circular reasoning with the dating systems. this is our dating system and if you do not like the date use our other ones and see how accurate they are. sorry but you canhowl all you want about how good they are, it doesn't change the fact that having multiple dating systems agree doesn't guarantee they got the date correct.

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by subbie, posted 08-14-2010 12:27 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 153 (574090)
08-13-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
08-13-2010 9:31 PM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
Denial is not refutation.
i am not denying anything, i am pointing out what it is.
however it is not possible for evidence to be older than the earth.
you actually can't say that unless you think and can prove that the earth was created at the same time as the universe and all the stars and planets in it.
according to some theories, space particles formed and then joined together to create planets and gravity but they can't prove that nor can you prove that dating backwards is accurate.
from the article:
Radiometric dating can be compared to an hourglass
that is a bad comparison as isotopes are not sand nor do they need gravity to help them escape a body. nor are there other granals intheir way.
But they can be verified very simply
but you are not verifying it, all one is using are modern ideas without any help fromancient sources to confirm. it is still all assumption, speculation and omits too many variables.
Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.
still an assumption and ignores other possibilities for their existence. scientists are assuming that formation only goes their way and nothing or no one had a hand in their construction.
i believe i gave a car example to illustrate this earlier and the dating systems advocates remind me of the scientist inthe example. things can only be done their way regardless of what the creator said. that is one of the problems, scientists will not listen to anyone else, eventhose who were there and created the objects. they are like stubborn little children who will not listen to reason.
let me illustrate it another way. i put salt in a jar and ask someone to date it and they come back saying because the glass is old and it takes 4 million years for salt to form to that specification, that i must have filled it 4-5,000,0000 years ago because all of their dating systems said so.
that is the logic dating systems advocates are using and ignore the reality that the salt and glass were already formed for a specific purpose and was made in a special way. it is not deceiving the dater, it is just reality.
***side note: i do not care what jar has done for or in churches those things do not make a person a christian and when you call God a liar you are not being a christian but denying God's word and saying you do not believe HIm. think again what a christian really is before claiming it.
P.S. i try to respond to each person but the majority of the comments are far below the standard set by the rules everyone must agree to that i just do not bother reading past the insulting or demeaning language and move on to the next poster in line.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2010 9:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2010 12:05 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 119 by bluescat48, posted 08-14-2010 1:23 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 120 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-14-2010 1:26 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 123 by Admin, posted 08-14-2010 7:02 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2010 10:13 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 153 (574111)
08-14-2010 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
08-13-2010 6:44 PM


you simply post untruths
how does it feel to be wrong so much. i posted nothing but truth as that is what has taken place over the past 3500-4000 years. you also forget that wooley dug down almost 100 ft and found what he thought originally the flood layer.
of course that was rejected by the establishment of that time and he racanted BUT what that proves is, even if someone did find evidence for the flood, they would be shouted down by all the naysayers who do not want the Bible true and who expect a uniform deposit of evidence; which we all know is basically impossible.
with mountains and rivers and lakes, those naysayers will never get what they want and even if they did, it ishighly unlikely they would accept or believe it to be evidence.
As I have told you I am a devout Christian
this is undermined by the following:
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 &
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7
which unbelieving person would want to believe in God and His words when you, who claims to be a christian and goes to church, do not?
christians are to be Christlike and guess what--Christ believed in creation and spoke if it yet you do not. you lose.
If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.
really?? how would you know there would be a bottleneck if all the species were destroyed and only a few saved? where would you get their records to see such an event?
no the flood has not been refuted simply because of your bias and hatred towards the Bible. you have no clue as to what to look for so you just make things up as you go.
with 8 people and at least 5 having different mothers and no idea what DNA they may have carried i do not think you have a chance to prove your statements. especially since their bodies are long gone as well as their DNA evidence. which means no verification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 6:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-14-2010 9:20 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 153 (574112)
08-14-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by shalamabobbi
08-14-2010 1:26 AM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
so you didn't do your homework..if you had read the articles cited you would know that the method proves the starting isotopic composition and that the system has remained closed.
still doesn't tell you how many they started with when the decline initiated nor does it tell you how many are lost because of the mitigating factiors that play a role in the decline of isotopes.
bodies eaten by birds and animals, natural disasters spoiling the body, and so much more.
all you people are doing is throwing up weak excuses so you can maitain whatever weak belief you have in your own systems. you also hate the fact that i do not accept your systems blindly like you do. can't help it, there are just too many errors involved for me to accept such frail methods.
If you had read the articles you might have noticed that the dating methods were verified by testing them on historical samples of known age.
just so you know, those known dates are not 10,000 years or older. they are very recent and most likely have historical records to verify them which you do not have for dates older than let's say 6,000 years since tree rings are involved.
but again, the reliability of the tree rings is questioned as well and does not make for a good calibrator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-14-2010 1:26 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-14-2010 11:59 AM 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