Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

Buz, Logical flaw: Argument from ignorance. You are invoking unknowns as a counterargument. It is of the form, "it hasn't been proven half lives were always constant, therefore they weren't".The FACT remains, that if there were mysterious unkowns in radiometric dating, then why the incredible concordance? You have always danced around directly addressing this issue.Your argument is flawed on two points, it is an argument from ignorance, & it fails to deal with the issue in hand, & hence you invoke a slothful induction. Remember, you have presented no data as to why radiometric dating is highly concordant & yet in somehow includes a problem. Logical flaw. Fallacy of composition. Because the bible is true in part, it is true in full. Every biblical prophecy that is non-trivial hasn't been fulfilled. I challenge you to open a new thread. Been there, done it. You refused to answer any of my previous messages on the subject. You have refused to address any of the counter evidence of why this cannot be true. slothful induction, again. Invoking those unknowns again? Not very convincing. Anyway, I'm on a logical roll, soooo. Fallacy of exclusion. In some cases radiometric dating achieves similar results to non-radiometric dating techniques. Where's your "unknown" problem now? Not to mention the untestability of your unknown...... Mmmmm, that's six logical flaws on four points. It's OK making a claim without being knowledgeable about such things, but refusing to address the weight of evidence on the strength of a book no-one-knows-who-wrote-or-whether-they-knew-what-they-were-talking-about (itself a logical fallacy: Appeal to anonymous authority) is inexcusable.I think a fair assessment of your argument would be, "Radiometric dating, & that fossils are as old as the rocks in which they reside must be wrong because it conflicts with my interpretation of my religion. I have no data that directly & reliably contradicts the current geological position, but it must be wrong". Right?You have never directly dealt with the radiometric dating concordance issue, nor the conclusion, that is consistent with all observations, that fossils are buried in unlithified sediments of the same age. I directly deal with this aspect of your dataless argument here, here, here, & here.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-12-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 07-12-2003]

Well to go over your points1) Scientists do have a good theoretical understanding of the issues and there is no plausible effect that could produce the results we see if the Earth were in fact young. Moreover a young Earth is inconsistent with other geological assumptions to the point where it was rejected.
By any rational standard this appeal to unknown effects which just somehow produced what we see is groundless speculation produced solely as an excuse to reject the clear evidence.2) The Bible's record is in fact not very good at all. In fact your point here is implicitly circular because it results FROM your belief in the Bible.3) This is an obvious falsehood.4) Is more groundless speculation on the grounds on 1If that is all you have to offer can we expect you to concede that you could be wrong and that the evidence is strongly against you ? Or will you keep on ignoring the facts as you have done in this thread or run away as you did over your claim of "frozen tropical animals" ?

Hi, Buzz!Well, you one-upped yourself! Your post managed to ignore not only every single point from my Message 200, but everyone else's points, too. All you did was repeat your initial premises. Congratulations, Buzz, a new record!Seriously, Buzz, if you don't address the points in the replies to you then this isn't a debate. If you're out of ammo then just say so, or just don't answer like you did in Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy, Frozen Tropical Animals and Buz's seashell claim, or just go away, or anything, but don't keep posting these inane answers just so you can post something. You're just wasting your time and ours. We already know what your position is - the purpose of the debate is to determine if your position is defensible. You entered the debate unarmed with the predictable result, and now you're doing a great imitation of a mindless zombie numbingly repeating a mantra of faith.As I advised you in my previous message, you've had to absorb a lot of information in a short time, and it would take anyone a while to assimilate and make sense of it. I think you're rushing into the debate too soon. Go off for a while and study and reflect a bit. Many evolutionists are very religious and read the Bible (I read a couple chapters of Hebrews just last night), and it wouldn't hurt you to read a science book or two. If you're right you won't be able to prove it with arguments of ignorance. Just because your cause is just doesn't mean the war can be won unarmed.If I may play a duel role in this post and speak from my administrator position, you may be wondering why the administrators are letting other members (like me) dump personal abuse on you. The reason is that you always break the rules first. You break rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines in almost every post. You've been warned by board administration about this, and I now just interpret the abuse people occasionally dole out to you as an expression of quite justified frustration. I'd post warnings about the behavior, but people would reply that you're already not following the guidelines and ask why I'm not doing anything about it. Well, the answer is that I already tried and you didn't modify your behavior. So now you're on your own. Maybe Adminnemooseus has some ideas. He's very reluctant to suspend you, and I won't take any action against anyone I'm actively debating, but my experience is that while an idiotic debate is taking place many people sit on the sideline and watch, and then when it ends activity suddenly picks up. If I weren't in active debate with you I'd suspend you in an instant. You need the break anyway, and I think I'd be doing you a favor.On the flip side of the coin, your deserve praise for the admirably cordial way you've conducted yourself in a debate where you stand alone against a sea of somewhat grumpy adversaries.By the way, you might think about why it is that you stand alone on one side while all the evolutionists stand together on the other. The reason is that Creationism isn't one theory, but many, OEC versus YEC merely being the highest level division of many. Creationism is fragmented into many different viewpoints because those viewpoints, having no factual basis, are chosen on the basis of personal preference. It's the same reason there are many religions but only one science, at least until you get to the scientific frontiers where new knowledge develops. You seem to have chosen one of the most conservative and difficult to defend Creationist positions, one that doesn't often persist in debate, and even to the point of rejecting many of AIG's very reasonable cautions about indefensible positions. You should have given greater consideration to AIG's well thought out advice, developed by long experience before you ever started visiting these boards, instead of discarding them to embarck on a Quixote-esque quest for glorious self-immolation.--Percy

Buz,Please come up with an argument other than I don’t want it to be so it can’t be true.In the event that you can't think of anything more elaborate, perhaps you should consider investing in a lie. After all, some unknowns, including the supernaturalism factors may be discovered to prove you right.Perhaps you think it is immoral to participate in the sciences. That would be worth debating. Common Buz, give us something

quote:

---

Seriously, Buzz, if you don't address the points in the replies to you then this isn't a debate.

---

If you don't mind, I'll hang out in the free for all where I can do as many others do, picking and choosing which comments I deem worthy of my time to reply. When you're all alone on a multipage thread against five to ten opponents firing stuff at you rapidfire and you're limited in the time to think, research and reply, with a full time business to run and doing your bookwork in eves, etc, it's just not possible to comply with your regimentation of forum rules in these monitored forums.

There is nothing in the Forum Guidelines regarding how long you take to reply. It is understood that many people have only limited available time. Take as much time as you need, though if you need more than a week you might drop a note to that effect so that people don't think you've abandoned the discussion.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Take as much time as you need,...

---

Such tolerance has not worked on the Frozen Tropical Animals tread where Buz could only provide irrelevent quotes and then ran away from further discussion. And Buz has repeatedly failed to address issues directly relevent to his distorted view of geology - the coincidence of various lines of evidence for the dating of the K/T boundary being the most obvious.

quote:

---

There is nothing in the Forum Guidelines regarding how long you take to reply. It is understood that many people have only limited available time. Take as much time as you need, though if you need more than a week you might drop a note to that effect so that people don't think you've abandoned the discussion.

---

But I've a problem with threats of suspension, as I'm not accustomed to rule breaking in anything. It appears from your admonitions I've broken a number of them and I can't deal with that. Then too, I'm thick skinned, but simply don't need these meanspirited insults when I don't consider some posts worth my comment or don't get to others in time to suit the poster. I get bugged about some technical stuff beyond my ability to respond intelligently, so I choose to leave it pass and get all heck for it and now I either respond or I'm breaking rules.In effect one is censored for participation in scientific discussion without an acceptable amount of established cohesive academia thought, or if one resorts to common sense and on occasion the supernatural factor, some of which on occasion collides with naturalistic scientific theory.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-13-2003]

Wi, insolent people like you just don't get it. I'm one person trying to respond to a host of stuff from a host of folks. I was busy on a couple of other threads trying to keep up with what I deemed the most pertinent posts for response with my limited time to post. I'm not highly educated and somewhat of a slow thinker. I may spend a half hour to an hour on some posts, as no doubt some others do. I must resort to research and some search links. If you can't handle that, then please go and talk to someone else.

Buzsaw, if you are not prepared to back up your assertions (eg. frozen tropical animals in Arctic ice are evidence for Noah's flood, or all radiometric datings are wrong) then don't make the assertion in the first place. Why is it incumbent on us to know whether you have any support for the statements which you make or if you have to run away and actually find something to support them when they are called into question?Is it insolent to accurately report your past behaviour?

quote:

---

In effect one is censored for participation in scientific discussion without an acceptable amount of established cohesive academia thought,

---

Or, put another way, in a scientific discussion, one is required to back up, with vertifiable, high-quality evidence, what one claims.It would be one thing if you came into the discussion admitting that you don't know some things, but this is not what you have done.You write in very definitive terms, as if you are an expert and as if you know a great deal about the subjects under discussion. You then get called to the caret for shooting your mouth off about things you have no understanding of.Why is this so strange to you?

quote:

---

or if one resorts to common sense and on occasion the supernatural factor, some of which on occasion collides with naturalistic scientific theory.

---

Common sense led people to believe for many centuries that us that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us and that demons caused mental illness.The scientific method is designed to compensate for the great limitations of our "common sense".As for your "supernaturalisms", you are free to believe in magical solutions to the factual and logical holes you dig yourself into, but then we are not having a scientific discussion any longer.If you want to claim the power of science, then you have to play by the rules of science.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-14-2003]

All,This has turned into one of those "Salty" threads. Buz has made a claim, refuses to address any counterpoints/data, & the discussion has now settled on as to why Buz can ignore any facts that contradict him, why he doesn't need to address particular threads, & why he feels able to ignore posters making valid, relevant arguments.Lacking anything else of any real substance to say, we have now regressed to the "bible quote" stage of the proceedings, as if that is providing actual evidence.......That said, I feel the evo's would mostly agree on a single question to be answered, I say this so Buz can answer this salient point, rather than feel he has to respond to a half dozen of us saying essentially the same thing. Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too? Would everyone agree?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-14-2003]

I think I could agree with that, and abandon the carbon 14 thread. Buz, Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too?

Agreed. Let's see Buzsaw at least try to address one issue which is fundamental to his bald assertions.Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too?

quote:

---

That said, I feel the evo's would mostly agree on a single question to be answered, I say this so Buz can answer this salient point, rather than feel he has to respond to a half dozen of us saying essentially the same thing. Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too? Would everyone agree?

---

Yes, I completely agree that this is the most important question for Buz to answer.I'd also like to remind Buz that this is essentially the original question of this thread, and was a response to Buz's claim that all radiometric dating methods were bogus....just want it clear that this is a response to a claim.