Assumptions involved in scientific dating

And neither is the truth established by you claiming that someone is right and ignoring the rebuttals in the literature. Not debates, actual analysis of the mistakes Arp makes. Anytime you want to have a real discussion, let me know by actually posting the details of Arp's claims.

They don't presume anything about the rock 'at creation'. Are you asking or telling?If you are asking, the answer is no. It would be.If that's what happens. It would appear that only YECs make the assumption that this is how radiometric dates are conducted. But we do have AN understanding.And, you have to admit, no understanding will ever satisfy the YEC movement. Mmm, ... I think you may want to speak for yourself on this.But sure, we don't know everything, especially if you go far enough back in time. But we do know some things and we can only move forward by building on what we know.

Poor job! Your reply shows you know absolutely nothing about radiocarbon dating!A few errors: we don't date rocks, only things that were once living. We don't date back to "creation" which for the earth is >4 billion years, just back some 50,000 years or so. We do know the amount of parent material (C14) through tree ring calibrations!You've shown you don't know the difference between the many radiometric dating methods, but in your ignorance you just know they're all wrong.If you would just study some of these subjects upon which you are pontificating you'd do lot better in these posts.

This is just another version of the old YEC position that if you don't know exactly what happened at the origin of the universe; then your current knowledge is unreliable and religious myth is preferable. That tiny doubt is precious, no matter how far back in time you have to go to find it.

I don't have an issue of debate in that thread. The time from Gen 1:1 to Abraham is not absolutely established. The geneaologies are not absolutely known to be used to age the earth and neither are the days in creation.

This is a science thread. Genealogies of Thor really don't matter at all.

Then why are you bringing thor up?Edited by DOCJ, : Err

I could say the same thing about naturalism. Anything to not only keep your precious view but also so you don't have to think about judgment (i.e. the emotional issue).

I have edited my posts for clarification. In some posts I erased a point in it but only because of clarification as I was not thinking just of radio carbon dating but all dating methods in my original responses.FYI: If I have not responded to a point in any post, anyone can point it out as I have not read every post. I'll go back ASAP. I am at work 65+ hrs a week, and I have 40+ hrs of other obligations outside work so I will get to the posts asap.Edited by DOCJ, : FyiEdited by DOCJ, : FyiEdited by DOCJ, : Fyi

Err, you'll have to work more than 65 hours a week and also have to show hundreds of thousands of specialists from all over the world; each working 40 to 65 + hours a week, too, that they all are wrong. Good luck!

So, you can't refute people who actually know something about even some of those methods of dating at all?

I don't believe you can have certainty [absolute knowledge] to any belief whether it be because of a body of knowledge, a spec of evidence or a revelation. We are all just trying to figure things out.The idea of refuting is working within a realm of thought or a body of knowledge... However thought or knowledge is not absolute no matter how good it is founded. In order to refute in a scientific sense it would have to take a backbone piece of evidence of a current theory to be shown false. Such as showing mutations don't occur in evolution, showing electricity is responsible for gravity in gravitational theory, become a God in a theological sense in order to hopefully actually show the ultimate being doesn't exist but it would only show it to yourself. It's easier in medical science because you can have a direct observation vs a indirect observation. For example observing a person dying right after you give them a med, or in math refuting 2 + 1 is 3, or refuting that you are asking about being refuted to see if I will provide a way to be refuted, or if I even believe in refutation.. I would wager both reasons are why you asked... But refuting that is a bit easier for you than me.. Somewhere in the midst of everything is truth. I have just been trying to point all of that above out with dating methods in general not just radiocarbon dating.FYI: I did admit that my belief system as a whole is adaptable but right now I do lean toward the electrical universe model of the universe. This doesn't mean I think conventional Science is absolutely wrong either. I don't believe Science is some kind of way to knowledge that does provide absolute truth nor does it claim to be that either. The main stuff I accept in science to be more provable is medical science which doesn't need evolutionist mechanisms to function (even though evolutionist mechanisms are typically a presupposition in the thinking). Everything is an argument in reality and everything has a presupposition.Edited by DOCJ, : CorrectionEdited by DOCJ, : ClarificationEdited by DOCJ, : ClarificationEdited by DOCJ, : ClarificationEdited by DOCJ, : No reason given.Edited by DOCJ, : AddEdited by DOCJ, : AddEdited by DOCJ, : AddEdited by DOCJ, : AddEdited by DOCJ, : AddEdited by DOCJ, : End

In Message 189 you said: So we come back to the basics, what base on knowledge can we build for validating "all dating methods" and check to see if you are right, or if you are wrong. Curiously, what I was suggesting is that you look at how the evidence shows radioactive dating to be valid.As I also said: For instance this diagram shows remarkable consilience and correlation between several different methods of deriving dates and the level of 14C in the samples Some of them radiometric and some by layer counting. Note that "Conventional 14C Age" is actually just the measured amount of 14C in the samples modified by a mathematical formula: Why does this pattern happen if all radiometric methods are questionable/erroneous/subject to error?The thread is not so much about measuring ages, but about validating the methods used by showing the correlations and consilience between the various methods, continually coming up with similar if not identical dates (within scientific accuracy).In Message 192 you say: So are we now in agreement on what "truth" can be known? This sure sounds a lot like my argument. "Truth" is tentative and subject to change.EnjoySo will you take the challenge or dodge it?Enjoy

I read the entire thread. I didn't find any issues that I can undermine persay. However arguably radiocarbon dating MAY be correct but that doesn't mean all radiometric dating is correct. Further using tree rings may be incorrect due to multiplicity and carbon dating maybe incorrect due to the various points I've already pointed out, i.e., the assumptions, so in that case you don't have congruence.Edited by DOCJ, : ErEdited by DOCJ, : Er

It may be better to correct things in a new post. Most of us don't go back to older posts to check for edits.