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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 222 (827355)
01-23-2018 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
01-23-2018 8:12 AM


Re: Questions
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude truth. This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion unless you believe in idealism.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2018 8:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2018 7:20 PM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2018 9:28 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2018 10:05 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 222 (827356)
01-23-2018 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coyote
01-22-2018 10:52 PM


Re: Questions
I don't need to defer to creationist points rooted in theology as you claim. The dispute is within the scientific community as I have referenced a few links proving it is within the scientific community. Honestly, it just is validating creationist thought.
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2018 10:52 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 9:20 AM DOCJ has replied

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


Message 93 of 222 (827359)
01-23-2018 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:27 AM


Re: Questions
Wowsers, another Electirc Universe nut!
Which has nothing to do with dating.
If you want to understand: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
If you are just blathering and have no interest in the answers: carry on as you were.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:27 AM DOCJ has not replied

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


Message 94 of 222 (827360)
01-23-2018 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 9:00 AM


Re: Questions
. The dispute is within the scientific community
Link 1: Electric Universe nuttery. Not the scientific community.
Link 2: Thunderbolts forum: Oh, I been there. More Electric Universe nuttery. Not the scientific community.
Link 3: An Electric Universe nuttery video. Not the scientific community.
Got the stones to visit Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe? Didn't think so.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 9:00 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:52 AM JonF has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 95 of 222 (827361)
01-23-2018 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:46 AM


Re: Questions
Sorry but in addition to using bare links being against forum rules, what you have provided has NOTHING to do with science or reality. There is no reasonable doubt when it comes to dating methods. Only willful liars and the willfully ignorant make such assertions.
DOCJ writes:
The reasonable doubt and scientific evidence falsifying bb, inflation, decay, etc which ARE not even theoretical has been provided.
Sorry again but that is simply bullshit. No such scientific evidence has been presented.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:46 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:39 AM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 96 of 222 (827363)
01-23-2018 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ
01-22-2018 10:29 PM


Re: Questions
Hi DOCJ,
Wow! This is a lot to unpack.
I'm merely interested in the truth about dating methods.
Judging from what you've posted, the actual truth is that you're interested in the "electric universe" and how it disproves dating methods.
The age debate wouldn't refute my faith because it is adaptable.
If your faith is truly adaptable and would change in light of what you learn in this debate, then that makes your faith much like science, changing whenever new evidence or understandings come to light. Pardon me if I don't believe your faith is like that.
I generally view conventional science as an outdated way of thinking.
Why don't you be honest and say you don't accept established methods of gaining scientific knowledge while offering no substitute methods.
I don't think any of the views are accurate in describing the universe.
Much of what we know about the universe is because we can see it. Maybe these scientific instruments are familiar to you:
I'm just interested in the truth.
We can tell you what is true about what science currently knows, but we can't give you truth. Science is tentative, always aware that it's knowledge is an incomplete understanding of the true nature of the universe. When science is good then it approaches that truth ever closer, but it never achieves it.
But are you really interested in accurately understanding scientific views? You seem to have begun promoting opinions not gained by scientific methods.
In interpreting your response, it does seem as if you do not care about the accuracy of dating. It's as if you are fine with whatever.
You quote nothing from Edge's Message 67 that you replied to, so there's no way to know what he said that lent you this impression, but in reading Edge's message I picked up the opposite impression.
Which is fine but I'm more interested with the truth. And if you represent the main way of thinking I can definitely see why there is a debate. Christians who are in seek mode are looking to conclude in truth not on bias with regards to dating. If your attitude is a standard within the geology field, it's not a good thing. Every detail should matter, anchoring is unhealthy.
Again, you quote nothing from Edge's message. What did he say that this is a response to? In particular, what attitude are you saying is "not a good thing"?
For the record, Edge expressed no bias with regard to radiometric dating
FYI: I believe in the electrical model of the universe,...
Which doesn't match observations.
...birkeland currents,...
Everyone accepts Birkeland currents. Note that the "b" is capitalized.
...plasma physics,...
Everyone accepts plasma physics.
...and accept gravitational physics as a weak force.
Gravitation is a very weak force compared to electromagnetic forces.
Essentially the Birkeland current would develop a universe that changes the composition of material, and the like due to the electrical current that would connect everything in the universe.
Birkeland currents are a local phenomenon that flow between the Earth's magnetosphere and ionosphere. The electric universe notion inappropriately generalizes Birkeland currents to the entire universe.
There is absolutely no way to determine the beginning or the age of the universe with conventional methods.
This is most certainly wrong. The evidence for an age of the universe of about 13.5 billion years has been established scientifically via two different methods.
The first link is to a 55 minute video, the second to a 20 minute video, and the third to a 25 minute video. The Forum Guidelines encourage you to express your views in your own words and only use links to websites, papers and videos as supporting references.
What makes you think anything concerning electric or plasma flows can have any effect upon radiometric decay rates?
Moving on to your Message 78:
DOCJ in Message 78 writes:
I think the wording you prefer doesn't change the issue. There is plenty of evidence electric currents flow in the cosmos, and electric discharge will effect radioactive clocks.
Link
Link 2
Link 3
Again, you should argue your views in your own words. What makes you think electric or plasma flows can affect radiometric decay rates?
Moving on to your Message 83:
DOCJ in Message 83 writes:
You don't know that.
Pressie doesn't know what? You've quoted nothing from Pressie, so how are we to know what you're claiming Pressie doesn't know?
Inflation has no facts.
Inflation is a theoretical model that *explains* facts, not *has* facts.
Redshift and the wmap is circumstantial reasoning.
WMAP, like most acronyms, is capitalized. This is an odd statement to make. Why do you think the observed increase in redshift with increasing distance along with the observations of the cosmic background radiation of the WMAP represent "circumstantial reasoning"?
Links already provided in previous post except 1 below.
Inflation
WMAP
Again, discussion via link is discouraged here. It would be really helpful if you could describe your evidence and present your analysis in your own words, then provide the links as supporting references.
Moving on to your Message 90:
DOCJ in Message 90 writes:
My goal of providing a alternative valid narrative is providing truth AND in which not a single contrary valid argument FROM you regarding the points in the links has been posted.
And again, we try to dissuade people from debating via link. According to the Forum Guidelines you haven't made any points yet, just provided links.
Making the assertion that I'm not looking for truth is irrelevant as the main narrative here is to provide reasonable doubt in conventional dating methods.
So start providing your evidence and analysis that will cast "reasonable doubt in conventional dating methods."
Since this has been provided in the links...
It's only been provided in the links and not in any text written by yourself. To be more explicit, this is the guideline you're violating from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
... feel free to debate but you will inevitably not refute the points because they are mere evidence.
We can make that judgment once you've presented your evidence.
The reasonable doubt and scientific evidence falsifying bb, inflation, decay, etc which ARE not even theoretical has been provided.
Once again, this debate is not your opportunity to pass out reading and viewing assignments. According to the rules of this board, so far you've provided nothing.
Moving on to your Message 91:
DOCJ in Message 91 writes:
I disagree. Truth is available. You just have to find it. Further it is truthful if you are objective AND provide data without the bias shrouding it. In doing so the interpreter is able to conclude truth. This idea that there is no truth is essentially a delusion unless you find idealism optional.
There is no truth of the kind you're seeking, a kind of absolutist truth that endures for all time. That is not science. The nature of science is to be tentative and always ready to change in light of new evidence or improved understanding.
Moving on to your Message 92:
DOCJ in Message 92 writes:
I don't need to defer to creationist points rooted in theology as you claim. The dispute is within the scientific community...
There is a very broad consensus within the scientific community about the Big Bang, the cosmological background radiation, and the age of the universe.
...as I have provided a few links proving it is within the scientific community.
Again with the links. There is almost no acceptance of the electric universe within the scientific community, certainly not enough for a dispute to arise, so I doubt very much that your Thunderbolts Project links and such show a dispute.
Honestly, it just is validating creationist thought.
I agree that conceding the connection between the electric universe and creationism is honest.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by DOCJ, posted 01-22-2018 10:29 PM DOCJ has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 97 of 222 (827366)
01-23-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:46 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
My goal of providing a alternative valid narrative is providing truth...
I don't think you're interested in the truth.
Anyone interested in truth would understand that one never "provides" truth. And that the Scientific Method is the best-known method for discovering the truth so far.
Links to the issues in your ideas are not required to refute them.
There's nothing to refute... you didn't discuss them at all in the first place.
If you're going to claim an idea and then whine about it not being refuted... you have to describe why you claim the idea is the more-accurate truth.
Without doing that... it's clear to everyone how interested you are in finding the truth.
You seem more interested in "protecting" something. But I don't know what that something is. And I don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:46 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:47 AM Stile has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 222 (827367)
01-23-2018 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
01-23-2018 9:32 AM


Re: Questions
Your argument is not scientific... It is emotional old man. ROFL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 9:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:06 AM DOCJ has not replied
 Message 103 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 11:13 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 222 (827368)
01-23-2018 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
01-23-2018 10:27 AM


Re: Questions
I disagree. Truth is the shedding of light, and I don't specifically mean in a theological sense. If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias. I'm merely attempting to point out that bias. I've said my point of view. I've also asked for your opinions. And soon I'll respond to Percy who has made a mess of things. I'm sure he is purposefully deceitful since it's clear he is conventional in his views, and would like to hate apparently vs being unbiased and debating as I have done.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 10:27 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:34 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 107 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 11:36 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 12:43 PM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 222 (827369)
01-23-2018 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by JonF
01-23-2018 9:20 AM


Re: Questions
Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific. Be more specific as to how per each point they make. FYI looking at the link. Anything you want me to look at?
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 9:20 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:41 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 12:58 PM DOCJ has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 101 of 222 (827370)
01-23-2018 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:39 AM


Re: Questions
Jar writes:
Your argument is not scientific... It is emotional old man. ROFL.
Jar wasn't making an argument. He was pointing out that you have yet to enter any evidence or arguments into the discussion, just links.
There's are good reasons this website encourages participants to make their arguments in their own words. First, links to websites, webpages and videos give no indication of the intended key points or information. Second, by describing the evidence and arguments in their own words people demonstrate (or not) that they have a mastery of material.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:39 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 102 of 222 (827371)
01-23-2018 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ
01-22-2018 10:29 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
I'm just interested in the truth.
Is followed by . . .
FYI: I believe in the electrical model of the universe, birkeland currents, plasma physics, and accept gravitational physics as a weak force.
It would appear that the second quote contradicts the first quote. It seems you are more interested in unfounded conspiracy theories than the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by DOCJ, posted 01-22-2018 10:29 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 12:55 PM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 222 (827372)
01-23-2018 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:39 AM


Re: Questions
It is actually factual. You still have not presented any scientific evidence and just bullshit as expected. I am not presenting an argument but rather simply pointing out that you have continued to avoid presenting either an argument or any scientific evidence.
Content free bullshit posts are really discouraged here.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:39 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 104 of 222 (827373)
01-23-2018 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 8:46 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
My goal of providing a alternative valid narrative is providing truth AND in which not a single contrary valid argument FROM you regarding the points in the links has been posted.
You have not shown that anything from the links is valid, so there is nothing to disprove. Just posting links will not work.
You claimed that electrical currents will affect the dating of rocks. It is now time for you to present that evidence. If you fail to do so, then we can only assume that you are not seeking the truth but only trying to ignore evidence you don't like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 8:46 AM DOCJ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2018 11:32 AM Taq has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 222 (827376)
01-23-2018 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Taq
01-23-2018 11:13 AM


Re: Questions
...only trying to ignore evidence you don't like.
But that's the creationist way.
They HAVE TO ignore contrary evidence 1) because it disproves their religious beliefs, and 2) there's so much of it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 11:13 AM Taq 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