Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 166 of 217 (154213)
10-29-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by CK
10-29-2004 4:56 PM


What question Charles ?
Or are you going to play games like Mark ?
Mark doesn't like my answer and until he acknowledges it what's the use ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by CK, posted 10-29-2004 4:56 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by CK, posted 10-29-2004 5:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 170 by jar, posted 10-29-2004 5:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 167 of 217 (154216)
10-29-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 5:09 PM


Maybe Mark (like the reason of us) can't understand what most of your answers have to do with the questions people posed to you?
I was refering to question 160?
so what's the answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 5:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 168 of 217 (154220)
10-29-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 4:51 PM


pan calling the pot black
half completed post sent by mistake -- deleted
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10-29-2004 04:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 217 (154221)
10-29-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 4:51 PM


pan calling the pot black
willowtree writes:
Producing one line insult posts is a dead giveaway for someone who is infuriated by things argued and evidenced.
http://EvC Forum: The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
willowtree writes:
This is narrow minded fascist repressive medieval religion, known today as scientism, the same business on the other side of the street, and you are a rank and file brainwashed member.
seems you know whereof you speak?
I would like a real answer instead of an insult if you can spare the time:
http://EvC Forum: The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
you were the one that brought up the search for truth beyond the rationality and methodology of science, and now you seem to have abandoned that topic once it got into actual ways to look at it other than just claiming that you have the inside scoop.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 6:20 PM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 170 of 217 (154224)
10-29-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 5:09 PM


Fifth such request to WILLOWTREE
Still waiting for an answer to the question asked in Message 128.
Once we get that settled we can go on to the next question.
This message has been edited by jar, 10-29-2004 04:36 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 5:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 171 of 217 (154226)
10-29-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 4:25 PM


WT writes:
quote:
1. If scientists are lying about the actual dates, then why don't creationists like yourself date those tektites and expose the inconsistencies?
They are accepting accept [huh???] dates based on what is already known, BUT the appearance of the research is a "objective scientific determination", which is a gross distortion that they have no interest in removing = deception = basis not to trust = basis for valid suspicion.
WHAT?? Are you saying we (as in geoscientists) are accepting accepted dates because of what we already know, but our scientific research endeavors (i.e., age-dating studies) are actually bogus because we already know the dates we are going to get so it's we're really just putting on a show when we conduct research? Is that what you are saying?
And because of this so-called deception, we should not be trusted?
quote:
The rejected/discard dates are as such BECAUSE of what is already widely known and published. Multiple attempts and the one that "seems" correct (based upon what is already known) is "surprisingly" accepted.
Again, what??
Are you saying that unless we get the 'right' dates - or the preconceived dates or pre-selected dates - that we are throwing away all the others?
Just how many rocks do you think have been age-dated?
quote:
What is already known IS NOT external independant verification - that is internal compatibility.
Independant external verification of the reliability of the dating technique only comes via rare unplanned circumstances that arise. Known age of material and dating failures also contribute to unreliability charges.
Again I ask the question, just how many of the BILLIONS of rocks found on this planet do you think have been age-dated?
quote:
Errors by dating scientists and the subsequent "intellectual phase-locking" is a scientific euphemism for correcting the error in favor of something already accepted. This is nothing more than cheating under the false pretense of scientific proof.
huh?
quote:
"Ballpark thinking" also is a source of error. No scientist would dare to cross the accepted consensus and commit professional suicide.
ahahahaha PROFESSIONAL SUICIDE??? Did you not read what I wrote earlier? EVERY scientist dreams of the day they can cross swords on the 'accepted consensus.'
quote:
Why would a creo date something that has zero chance of ever being accepted much less known ?
That is such total BS!
quote:
Why would a creo use a techique or any of the techniques seeing how all are unreliable ?
Well is creos would learn the basics of using such techniques they wouldn't be so unreliable. Funny how they are ONLY unreliable in the hands of YECs...
quote:
Do techniques work sometimes ?
Yes, but not all the times. This and the reasons stated above equate to the absolute declarations that evolution makes and believes tantamount to crying wolf.
yes, they only work when it happens to benefit YECs - how perfectly convenient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 4:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2004 8:32 PM roxrkool has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 172 of 217 (154232)
10-29-2004 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
10-28-2004 6:29 PM


Re: Scientific Circles
As already explained, Milton's claim that geologists assign average thicknesses to geological eras is wrong. They don't do that.
Milton critiqued the Geological Column and pointed out that uniformity exists except in relatively modern times.
The Van Eysinga column provides age scale AND peroid depth in meters (page 69 in his book).
Milton pointed out that the claim and representation of the column, in addition to the lack of uniformity already mentioned, cannot possibly account for evolutionary claims of ultra slow fossilization of anything much less a forest.
You're also interpreting the term uniformitarian incorrectly. It refers to the array of forces acting on the earth as being uniform, not the rates of change resulting from those forces. In other words, it doesn't say that the rate of change is constant, but that throughout time it has always been the same forces effecting change. If rain erodes mountains today, then rain eroded mountains billions of years ago. If volcanos are possible today, then volcanos were possible billions of years ago. If comet strikes are possible today, then comet strikes were possible billions of years ago (actually, they were more likely billions of years ago, because the supply of comets isn't infinite and there's fewer of them now then there were then).
Depending upon which forces are active at any given time, the rate of change may be fast or slow. A volcano can cause rapid and deep deposition. Annual rainfall causes slow erosion on mountains and slow deposition in valleys, lakes and oceans. And as explained in Message 73, some parts of the world experience erosion, some deposition, and which parts of the world experiences which changes with time. As already explained, Milton's claim that geologists assign average thicknesses to geological eras is wrong. They don't do that.
I understand your explanation - so be it.
But, Milton is only taking the column and pointing out the obvious false implications that it suggests.
Percy writes:
Message 73 Someone else already noted this, but geological periods have no single thickness in the geological column. Rates of deposition vary widely all around the globe, and they can be positive (actual deposition) or negative (erosion). Milton is wrong to say this.
Milton is pointing out what the column is saying. The column is then wrong to exhibit this.
Percy writes:
Message 73 He's also wrong to say the Cretaceous lasted 65 million years. It ended about 65 million years ago. It lasted roughly 80 million years.
No - the column says it lasted 65 million years.
Milton was quoting what the column says.
Page 50, Milton: "Ever since Charles Lyell estimated that the end of the Cretaceous was 80 million years ago, the accepted value has been in this ballpark."
Page 51, Milton: "....Cretaceous, a period which is universally believed to date from some 65 million years ago."
Percy writes:
Message 73 Milton doesn't have a finding. As already stated, it isn't possible to calculate average deposition rates for geological eras. You can only calculate average deposition rates for specific examples of geological layers.
Milton is only pointing out what the Van Eysinga Geological Column says.
If what you say is true then why is the column is error ?
Percy writes:
Message 73 Fossilization generally requires quick burial. This doesn't happen that often, which is why fossils are relatively rare compared to the number of creatures that have ever existed.
Yes, it is called catastrophism and it falsifies uniformitarianism and the immense antiquity it demands.
Uniformitarianism and its moniker, "the present is the key to the past" is a scientific sounding principle, but in reality it was only created to dismiss Biblical type catastrophes regardless of the evidence.
Catastrophes are sudden and quick and too evidenciary of Biblical claims therefore evos discount and downplay their occurrence while maintaining the antithesis of uniformitarianism and its implied anti-catastrophism meaning.
About Joan Ahrens:
You are asserting fraud only because of the implications of the evidence.
Your assertion is noted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 10-28-2004 6:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 10-29-2004 8:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 173 of 217 (154236)
10-29-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
10-29-2004 5:31 PM


Re: pan calling the pot black
Cute and creative quote mining job I must admit.
I will not abandon the God-sense topic - ASAP.
Ned's topic is real good as this topic has stolen my attention.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2004 5:31 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by mark24, posted 10-29-2004 8:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 217 (154246)
10-29-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 4:25 PM


Read the question again, Willow.
1. If scientists are lying about the actual dates, then why don't creationists like yourself date those tektites and expose the inconsistencies?
I want you to answer the question. According to you, creos have no bias nor any expectations for the ratio of potassium and argon in those tektites. Therefore, they will not throw out any dates. So, why don't creationists go out and measure the ratios of potassium and argon in those tektites. They could reveal the supposed fraud once and for all. WHY DON'T CREATIONISTS LIKE YOURSELF DO THIS? ANSWER MY QUESTION?
quote:
The rejected/discard dates are as such BECAUSE of what is already widely known and published. Multiple attempts and the one that "seems" correct (based upon what is already known) is "surprisingly" accepted.
Prove this happens or shut up.
quote:
What is already known IS NOT external independant verification - that is internal compatibility.
Multiple investigators dating the same rock formation is external corroboration. One of those multiple investigators could be a creationist. So why doesn't this happen?
quote:
Errors by dating scientists and the subsequent "intellectual phase-locking" is a scientific euphemism for correcting the error in favor of something already accepted. This is nothing more than cheating under the false pretense of scientific proof.
Don't you understand how easy it would be to expose this practice if creationists dated those tektites?
You are all blab and no action. Show me the evidence, not someone's opinion that is derived from quote mines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 4:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2004 8:14 PM Loudmouth has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 175 of 217 (154256)
10-29-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 4:25 PM


pesky correlations
willowtree writes:
What is already known IS NOT external independant verification - that is internal compatibility.
Independant external verification of the reliability of the dating technique only comes via rare unplanned circumstances that arise. Known age of material and dating failures also contribute to unreliability charges.
But this is exactly one of the things that {Age Correlations and an Old Earth} discusses:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth
And it only touches the ice-berg tip of correlations between other radiometric methods, as it only goes back 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole, and dates beyond that rely on other correlations (astronomy and the number of days in a year)
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10-29-2004 06:53 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 4:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 176 of 217 (154264)
10-29-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Loudmouth
10-29-2004 6:53 PM


I wonder if one could attempt to put together a compiled list of every date ever done, something like the Steve list with people adding their data to it, and plot it all out? like an expanded Lake Suigetsu chart.
Problem is what is second ordinate? samples with two dating techniques? How does one know that a date is wrong?
just a thought

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Loudmouth, posted 10-29-2004 6:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 177 of 217 (154267)
10-29-2004 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 6:20 PM


Re: pan calling the pot black
WT,
Cute and creative quote mining job I must admit.
The pot calling the kettle black, no less!
Post 157, please.
I asked you three questions, I'd like them answered point by point, please.
Not that I expect anything less than evasion from a creationist, but for the record, this is why you chaps always lose in the big arena. You don't have a fucking clue as to what represents valid evidence. Or rather, you do, because if there was evidence that equalled 71,000,000 : 1 of Jesus being the Son of God, you wouldn't be so dismissive, non?
But then our world doesn't revolve around 4k year old middle eastern pastoralist myths, it revolves around logically valid evidence. I guess that's where creationists & the rest of humanity part company, right?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 6:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 178 of 217 (154270)
10-29-2004 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 6:11 PM


Re: Scientific Circles
WillowTree writes:
Percy writes:
As already explained, Milton's claim that geologists assign average thicknesses to geological eras is wrong. They don't do that.
Milton critiqued the Geological Column and pointed out that uniformity exists except in relatively modern times.
Milton is wrong. There is no such uniformity. I suspect that Milton's error derives from what you say next:
The Van Eysinga column provides age scale AND peroid depth in meters (page 69 in his book).
The Van Eysinga diagram of the geologic column is a composite. That means it was drawn using information of geologic layers from many different regions of the globe. Generalized geologic column diagrams like this are created for purposes of illustration. They shouldn't be interpreted as if this is the way the layers appear everywhere throughout the world.
As has already been explained, regions of the world experience varying amounts of deposition and erosion. Mountains will always erode, and so any mountain in the Cretaceous would have negative deposition (i.e., erosion), and could leave no trace whatsoever in the geologic record. A mountain range in the Cretaceous that took 20 million years to erode away would leave no direct record at all. It's existence could only be implied from the type of layers deposited in adjacent regions.
So when you look at the Van Eysinga diagram, understand that you're looking at a composite. In some regions of the globe, the Cretaceous is represented in the geologic column by miles-thick layers. In other regions of the globe which were mountainous for long periods in the Cretaceous, it would be represented by much thinner layers. And in some regions of the globe the Cretaceous layers have already been eroded away (New Jersey and Manhattan, for example), and so we can't know how thick the Cretaceous layers might have been.
Because of the widely varying thickness of Cretaceous layers in various parts of the world, and because there's no Cretaceous layers to measure in the remaining parts of the world, it wouldn't really by possible for anyone, including Van Eysinga, to assign thicknesses, even average thicknesses, to any geological era, including the Cretaceous.
I've endured about as many "Milton says..." answers as I'm going to. If you disagree with the above you must address the points directly and explain where and why you disagree.
No - the column says it lasted 65 million years.
Milton was quoting what the column says.
Page 50, Milton: "Ever since Charles Lyell estimated that the end of the Cretaceous was 80 million years ago, the accepted value has been in this ballpark."
Page 51, Milton: "....Cretaceous, a period which is universally believed to date from some 65 million years ago."
I think you've misinterpreted things. When someone says that the Cretaceous lasted 80 million years, they mean that the time between its beginning and its end was 80 million years. When they say it was 65 million years ago, they mean that the time between its end and today was 65 million years.
The fact of the matter is that the Cretaceous period lasted from roughly 144 million years ago until about 65 million years ago, a period of about 80 million years.
Charles Lyell's rough estimate of 80 million years ago for the end of the Cretaceous was a pretty good estimate, being off by only 25% from the 65 million years ago that was established through radiometric dating.
But, Milton is only taking the column and pointing out the obvious false implications that it suggests...
Milton is only pointing out what the Van Eysinga Geological Column says.
If what you say is true then why is the column is error ?
The column is not in error. From what you're saying, it sounds like Milton is misinterpreting Van Eysinga's diagram of a composite geologic column. Why don't you scan in the diagram and post it so we can figure out why Milton is getting this wrong.
About Joan Ahrens:
You are asserting fraud only because of the implications of the evidence.
I never said anything about fraud. I warned you before about putting words in my mouth, and there have been other recent cautions, such as about calling people liars. You had better step back inside the Forum Guidelines quick. You are making as big a fog in this thread with Milton as you did in the pyramid thread with Rutherford, and I'm very unhappy about it.
This is the last time I'm going to endure a non-answer on the Joan Ahrens story. As I already explained, you have no evidence. What you have is a story for which there are conflicting versions. You have no scientists names, you have no citation of a published paper that has been shown in error. The term usually applied to what you have is "anecdotal". Anecdotal evidence has no standing in court, and it has no standing here. In the future, please confine your arguments to those that are based upon evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 6:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 179 of 217 (154346)
10-30-2004 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 12:52 AM


Re: Scientific Circles
quote:
You are employing what is called an idiot argument.
Yeah, well, I thought maybe it was appropriate.
quote:
You are asserting unless I agree with you that I am an idiot.
Actually, I gave you a reason to suspect Milton's reasoning. You failed to fathom it.
quote:
IOW, you are this esoterically enlightened chosen special person and I am too dumb to know that one of your kind gone astray is duping me.
Actually, it's one of your kind that is duping you. I'm just trying to help.
quote:
I find it interesting that you rely on a philosophical argument in a science topic instead of evidence. But I agree that philosophy is king and not science.
Actually, it wasn't philosophical at all, it was a simple fact. If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 12:52 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 180 of 217 (154358)
10-30-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 3:17 PM


quote:
But to make it very simple and easy to understand: Dating scientists who are evos are engaged in fraud in the exact same manner Pyramidologists who are theists are engaged in fraud.
Yes, WT, everyone is committing fraud but people who agree with you.
quote:
Because your evidence is seen to support your claims then it must be fraud or unsupported assertions or a combo of both.
Or it might support the claims...
This is beyond silly, WT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 3:17 PM Cold Foreign Object 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