23 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaI can guarantee he will just trash all your good effort here. I have been here many times myself before with him: He will just keep repeating the same endless falsehood of any science being all "just assumptions" and any bible claims as being "facts" and yet he will continue to use his computer to send this message -a computer that depends on the science he trashes as being all "just assumptions" and which, if was wrong, no computer would work.
I've taken a stab at addressing this video's criticism of three assumptions in radiometric dating. I quote the Wikipedia article I mentioned in my previous post--an article which, I will add, in turn cites many other well-established scientific articles for support.
___
[quote]How does someone know the decay rate has remained constant since the rock ...[text shortened]... " as it applies to those fields while you do not accept its application to the field of geology.
23 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaI believe that it would be better to use natural alternatives to drugs. However, the big money is in the drugs and the drug companies are always going to promote their drugs as best even though they must disclose all the possible bad side effects when they become known.
The issue of perceived good drugs turning out to be bad drugs is one of basic statistics. Again, because it's infeasible to test whether the drug in question is safe for every single person in the world, scientists make the assumption that based on a small sample of patients, they can be confident in their conclusions, given their a priori assumpti ...[text shortened]... a drug was dangerous than you would have to believe that they were wrong in the first place.[/b]
But there is much in science that does not have to deal with assumptions. That is why we have air conditioners, refrigerators, radios, televisions, computers, telephones, automobiles, etc. These things have been tested and there are no assumptions necessary. However, we have not come up with a way to test the age of rocks to eliminate the assumptions.
24 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is merely YOUR assumption. The real world is fine with those readings.
I believe that it would be better to use natural alternatives to drugs. However, the big money is in the drugs and the drug companies are always going to promote their drugs as best even though they must disclose all the possible bad side effects when they become known.
But there is much in science that does not have to deal with assumptions. That is wh ...[text shortened]... However, we have not come up with a way to test the age of rocks to eliminate the assumptions.
You pulled the assumption card right on schedule just like Humy said you would. How does it feel to be so predictable?
You have nothing but opinion and not even your own, you try to plagiarize other people's words and if that doesn't work, put in the opinion piece of an avowed creationist with poppycock BS weaponized science with the agenda of destroying not building truth, only interested in making creationism a political force to force it down people's throats.
Your agenda never changes, whereas science CAN and DOES change with every new discovery.
Show me a 200 million year old parakeet and evolution goes out the window. till then it is the ONLY game in town.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseMillions and billions of years is stock in trade of the evolutionist's assumptions. I deal in real science, which is limited to thousands of years.
That is merely YOUR assumption. The real world is fine with those readings.
You pulled the assumption card right on schedule just like Humy said you would. How does it feel to be so predictable?
You have nothing but opinion and not even your own, you try to plagiarize other people's words and if that doesn't work, put in the opinion piece of an avowed c ...[text shortened]... lion year old parakeet and evolution goes out the window. till then it is the ONLY game in town.
24 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, you just don't know what science methodology works. There is nothing in science (real science! not the evilution kind of creationist invention) that confirms the 6KY limit, nothing.
Millions and billions of years is stock in trade of the evolutionist's assumptions. I deal in real science, which is limited to thousands of years.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonka"Do you ever post things just to stir up emotions?"
I'm asking how you cultivate your interest in rhetoric.
Do you ever post things just to stir up emotions?
Do you ever post opinions that you personally don't agree with?
Do you ever talk to others on these fora in ways you would not talk to people sitting right beside you?
...
No. Sometimes I am a bit provoking to get a response that I wouldn't get without, then: Yes, but I don't call that to stir up emotions.
"Do you ever post opinions that you personally don't agree with?"
No. But over time I might change opinions, but on a short term, no.
"Do you ever talk to others on these fora in ways you would not talk to people sitting right beside you?"
Yes. And people talks to me in ways they wouldn't do IRL. If they do, I just walk away. The environment in a forum differs radically from those IRL so I consider them as different 'worlds'.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsOh pleazze, you don't 'deal' with science at all. Your goal is to destroy not build truth. The real world is billion of years old but you are too mentally self mutilated to recognize what is before your very limited vision.
Millions and billions of years is stock in trade of the evolutionist's assumptions. I deal in real science, which is limited to thousands of years.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseWhen it comes to the age of the earth, my vision is limited to scientific proofs and historical information. I do not indulge in wild imaginations and exaggerations to increase the age of the earth to so-called billions of years.
Oh pleazze, you don't 'deal' with science at all. Your goal is to destroy not build truth. The real world is billion of years old but you are too mentally self mutilated to recognize what is before your very limited vision.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't think you realize the implications of your admission that "these things have been tested," because I think you would be surprised to know that there are still assumptions implied in the design of those tests.
But there is much in science that does not have to deal with assumptions. That is why we have air conditioners, refrigerators, radios, televisions, computers, telephones, automobiles, etc. These things have been tested and there are no assumptions necessary. However, we have not come up with a way to test the age of rocks to eliminate the assumptions.
Take cars, for instance. When a manufacturer calculates the average gas mileage for a car, they make assumptions about how fast you drive, how often you stop, whether you run the air conditioning, etc., because all of these factors impact the gas mileage. When a manufacturer tests the safety of its seatbelts and airbags, it uses dummies that weigh a certain amount and it uses cars that travel at certain speeds under certain conditions--these tests are not necessarily reflective of all the variables in the real world, so they are by definition assumptions. For that matter, manufacturers assume that tomorrow, the laws of gravity will still hold. Laugh if you want, but that's exactly the same kind of assumption geologists make when they assume that the rate of radioactive decay of a given element today won't be different tomorrow.
25 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaRJHinds *assume* that the bible is true with all its implication, and that's why he left his brain where his hat usually is, and became a YEC creationist.
I don't think you realize the implications of your admission that "these things have been tested," because I think you would be surprised to know that there are still assumptions implied in the design of those tests.
Take cars, for instance. When a manufacturer calculates the average gas mileage for a car, they make assumptions about how fast you drive ...[text shortened]... assume that the rate of radioactive decay of a given element today won't be different tomorrow.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaSure, but like I said, they can test their assumptions to see the results. Once they do the tests then they can see if they assumed correctly and if not make adjustments to their assumptions. This can not be done with dating rocks.
I don't think you realize the implications of your admission that "these things have been tested," because I think you would be surprised to know that there are still assumptions implied in the design of those tests.
Take cars, for instance. When a manufacturer calculates the average gas mileage for a car, they make assumptions about how fast you drive ...[text shortened]... assume that the rate of radioactive decay of a given element today won't be different tomorrow.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you don't believe in geology, probably because you don't know much about geology.
Sure, but like I said, they can test their assumptions to see the results. Once they do the tests then they can see if they assumed correctly and if not make adjustments to their assumptions. This can not be done with dating rocks.
"This can not be done with dating rocks." which shows the above.
25 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasWe now have so many things that can make radiometric dating go wrong. One of these concerns the fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. Do you remember there was a worldwide flood over all the earth about 4400 B.C. and many smaller floods after that time. So the uniformitarian assumption won't work based on that alone.
But you don't believe in geology, probably because you don't know much about geology.
"This can not be done with dating rocks." which shows the above.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
25 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou think that there are only one method to date a rock. There are plenty. If many shows the same age, then it is so. You don't really know much about radio-chronological measurements, so I understand why you get it so wrong, and you are so prone believing in people who happen to have an opinion that you agree with.
We now have so many things that can make radiometric dating go wrong. One of these concerns the fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old. Do you remember there was a worldwide flood over all the earth about 4400 B.C. and many smaller floods after that time. So the uniformitarian assumption won't work based on that alone.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
If you make a research of Mr Plaisted, you will know that he is not exactly an authority in geology.
25 Mar 14
1 edit
Determining Half-Life
By observing how fast U-238 decays into lead-206, we can calculate the half-life of U-238. This is a theoretical calculation, and we can therefore determine that the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. Remember that the half-life is a statistical measure. Granting that U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years in no way negates the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
A very common rock that contains U-238 is granite. If we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much U-238 and Pb-206 the crystal contains. In order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information:
1.We need to know how fast the U-238 turns into Pb-206. The half-life gives us this value, provided the half-life has never altered during the lifetime of the zircon crystal.
2.We need to know how much Pb-206 there was in the original rock. This is clearly impossible. It is usually assumed, without justification, that the original quantity of Pb-206 in the rock was zero.
3.We need to be sure that no lead compounds have been added to or taken away from the rock. Given that lead compounds are fairly soluble in water, this is something that we cannot be very sure of.
Using the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1.5 billion years.
Based Upon Assumptions
The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each alpha-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong.
http://www.creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/