Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 29 of 136 (368266)
12-07-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
11-17-2006 11:35 AM


One of the most common tactics I see used is misapplication of dating methods. An example is their reference to using 14C to show stuff is younger than claimed or using longer range dating methods to show that material that is actually young dates as older.
The reason that this is a con is that each method has a range where it will be effective. Outside that range what you get is a nonsense answer.
also, i tend to see claims about using c-14 to date inorganic material which is impossible.
A claim I have seen on many (unfortunately Christian) sites is of dating Hawaiian basalt using the potassium-argon method. The samples were known to be only 200 or so years old yet they got readings that were in the hundreds of thousands of years.
Well, frankly no shit. That is to be expected. The potassium-argon method has a usable range of from some 100,000 years to about 4,000,000,000 years.
no, the dates that study gave were accurate. it's the creationists that lie -- the study was dating inclusions, not the new rock. inclusions, by definition, are older than the surrounding rock. this is basic geology, but that seems to be something creationists either don't understand, or want to decieve people about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 11-17-2006 11:35 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022