Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,258 Year: 6,515/9,624 Month: 93/270 Week: 6/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 11 of 222 (790871)
09-07-2016 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coyote
09-05-2016 8:50 AM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
Yeah, I was waiting for some creationist to come along. Especially with K-Ar dating, as one of my old lecturers (in the US they would call them Professors and he got his PhD in some area of Geochronology from Harvard many years ago), has been providing me with information on how he used to do K-Ar dating on some formations of the Barberton Sequence...in the 1980's. Since then he has been getting more accurate dates in his research with other methods.
Those mining companies are not stupid! They still pay him to date those rocks. They say more accurate dates (instead of 3.8 billion +- 50 million years) 3.8 +-20 million years will provide them with more accurate predictions on what will be found underground.
I'm still waiting for some YEC to use YEC methods for exploration and mining... They don't seem to want to put their money where their mouths are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 09-05-2016 8:50 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kbertsche, posted 09-07-2016 4:00 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 22 of 222 (790929)
09-08-2016 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
09-07-2016 11:56 PM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
So, Faith, let's discuss the 'assumptions' you think involved in scientific dating. That's what this threat is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 09-07-2016 11:56 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Pressie, posted 09-08-2016 6:40 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 24 of 222 (790931)
09-08-2016 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Pressie
09-08-2016 5:51 AM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
ICANT disappeared about those 'assumptions'. ICANT knows that he/she can't defend those claims.
My bet is that ICANT will just carry on spreading the same untruths about the nature of geological dating systems to people not educated in geology (probably 99.9999999999%) of people regardless of the evidence.
I mean in my country only around 3000 living people have had any formal education in geology out of a total population of more than 50 million living people. In a country where the economy is very dependent on mining.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Pressie, posted 09-08-2016 5:51 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 26 of 222 (791705)
09-20-2016 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
09-19-2016 2:55 PM


Re: Bump for creationist input
Yet, they still keep on going around those "assumptions" on the CMI website, where people are not allowed to comment without severe restrictions on what evidence is allowed. They don't even allow direct measurements...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 2:55 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 35 of 222 (791891)
09-26-2016 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
09-21-2016 4:12 PM


Re: Maybe off topic
Faith writes:
As for the "assumptions" scientific dating is based on, I just don't get into dating issues at all if I can help it.
You should try it, Faith. This thread is about those "assumptions" those creationists keep talking about. You do know that there's lots of evidence for those "evolutionist assumptions" . This is the threat to discuss those "assumptions".
ICANT disappeared. Obviously ICANT is not able to handle reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 4:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 36 of 222 (791893)
09-26-2016 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
09-07-2016 6:31 PM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
Faith writes:
Sure: absolute or "scientific" dating is irrelevant if relative dating is all it takes to find oil or do other practical geological work
I disagree. Relative dating is very, very important in describing the coal deposits I, personally, work on. Remember those exploration and mining companies?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 09-07-2016 6:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 40 of 222 (798868)
02-06-2017 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:30 AM


Re: Correction
ICANT writes:
No my goofy idea is that in the far distant past the earth was smaller than it is today. I believe that is also the scientific view as the earth grew bigger over millions of years.
Changing the subject, again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:30 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 51 of 222 (799057)
02-07-2017 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:32 PM


Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
ICANT writes:
The first assumption you have to make is that the universe is x years old,...
Nope.
ICANT writes:
A constant rate of decay,...
Nope.
ICANT writes:
... an isolated system
Nope.
ICANT writes:
... in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost,...
Nope.
ICANT writes:
... and a known amount of the daughter element present initially.
Nope.
You seem to always be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:32 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 57 of 222 (799857)
02-17-2017 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
02-16-2017 8:40 PM


Re: Bump (again) for creationist input
My favourite one was
quote:
Simply put, atoms typically have an equal number of protons and neutrons, as seen in the image below (left side). An atom becomes radioactive when it has more neutrons than protons, which makes it heavier then it's supposed to be.
This guy is stupid. That's not an ASSUMPTION.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2017 8:40 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 02-17-2017 9:06 PM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 59 of 222 (800114)
02-20-2017 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by NoNukes
02-17-2017 9:06 PM


Re: Bump (again) for creationist input
That's right. No point in running DNA tests to determine paternity. We must refer only to eye-witness accounts of penis depositing sperm into vagina.
And not any old sperm. We must have eye-witness accounts of the exact sperm out of millions penetrating and fertilizing the egg...and recreate the same sperm cells doing exactly the same years afterwards in a lab.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 02-17-2017 9:06 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 60 of 222 (800316)
02-22-2017 6:19 AM


Bump (again) for creationist input
Creationists, Where Art Thou?

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 77 of 222 (827337)
01-23-2018 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by DOCJ
01-22-2018 10:29 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
... In interpreting your response, it does seem as if you do not care about the accuracy of dating...
That's exactly the opposite of what I've understood from what edge wrote.
In my field, accurate dating is paramount in trying to predict what will be found underground. Modern dating systems work extraordinarily well.
Maybe you, personally, do have a big problem in you trying to find "The Truth (Pty. Ltd)" instead of looking for models providing the best explanations for what is observed (the truth)? Maybe it's because you don't know what scientific methods involve?

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

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 80 of 222 (827340)
01-23-2018 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 5:27 AM


Re: Questions
I looked at you first link. A few sentences in it says:
Your source writes:
...The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought...
Nonsense. We can disregard your link. The Universe is expanding at an accellerating rate.
In the meantime, why do all the major exploration and mining companies I've ever worked with accept radiometric dating as accurate? Are they all stupid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 5:27 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:16 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 82 of 222 (827343)
01-23-2018 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 6:07 AM


Re: Questions
The first one was economical with the truth. No reason to look at the rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 6:07 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 85 of 222 (827347)
01-23-2018 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by PaulK
01-23-2018 6:31 AM


Re: Questions
PaulK, the person is trying to address the believers. They will believe whatever he says regardless what is shown in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2018 6:31 AM PaulK 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