- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHinds pposting videos you think answer the question do not show that you understand what is being discussed. you need to express your understanding in your own words.
Well, I believe the video helps answer your question better than just me typing the ideas back to you. The point of the video was to point out to you that radiometric dating does not actually date time, but instead just measure the amount of isotopes in the rocks or fossils.
I also linked a website that covers the problems with radiometric dating. So what else do you want from me?
you just seem to hope each video is correct, if proven otherwise you just move onto another video, if thats proven wrong you just move on to another. never stopping to defend the each video........im pretty sure its because you dont actually understand the science thats being discussed. if im wrong then tackle the points made regarding tree fossils with out using clips or links.
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieI responded to that already on page ten of this thread right after you posted it.
posting videos you think answer the question do not show that you understand what is being discussed. you need to express your understanding in your own words.
you just seem to hope each video is correct, if proven otherwise you just move onto another video, if thats proven wrong you just move on to another. never stopping to defend the each video.. ...[text shortened]... d. if im wrong then tackle the points made regarding tree fossils with out using clips or links.
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou don't know? Meaning that you debate without reading what the other side writes? And you call yourself a genius?
Okay, Let me review it again to see what is being disputed.
Listen, that's why you don't have much respect. Because you don't give the simple respect to read what is discussed...
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsPart of debating is fitting your arguments into the allotted time (which in this case is the time needed to read a forum post). It is beyond unreasonable to expect a person you are debating to watch an hour long video and read a huge webpage (that also has a large number of links).
Well, I believe the video helps answer your question better than just me typing the ideas back to you. The point of the video was to point out to you that radiometric dating does not actually date time, but instead just measure the amount of isotopes in the rocks or fossils.
I also linked a website that covers the problems with radiometric dating. So what else do you want from me?
Another part of debating is addressing the arguments of the people you are debating. I made several arguments, and only a small part of my second post talked about radiometric dating. Linking to videos and websites that talk about radiometric dating does not address most of what I discussed.
If you are going to claim that you are willing to debate, you should debate properly (or alternately, stop claiming that you are willing to debate).
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by PatNovakI have many things going at one time. So let me take one item at a time on this thread. You said the following:
Part of debating is fitting your arguments into the allotted time (which in this case is the time needed to read a forum post). It is beyond unreasonable to expect a person you are debating to watch an hour long video and read a huge webpage (that also has a large number of links).
Another part of debating is addressing the arguments of the people you a ...[text shortened]... bate, you should debate properly (or alternately, stop claiming that you are willing to debate).
Geologists do not dispute that geologic events can happen quickly. Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are not mutually exclusive. Proving some geologic events happen quickly does not prove they all act quickly.
Since that is so then exclusively using uniformitarian means to do dating as evolutionists do is not valid. Radiometic dating uses uniformitarian principles exclusively in dating so it is not valid because it never considers the quick actions that catastrophism may have on the dating.
We see catastrophic events all the time and they have been recorded in history and what some people call the myths of the worldwide flood by all cultures across the world. So to eliminate the effects of catastrophic events just to get long periods of time to support evolution is not valid.
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are conflating two definitions of the word uniformitarianism. Uniformitarian geology (also known as geologic gradualism) is the sense of the word we have been using up to this point (as your many comparisons of catastrophism and uniformitarianism in this thread prove). Now you are using uniformitarianism in a different sense, that the rules of the present universe are the same as the past universe, and are true everywhere in the universe.
I have many things going at one time. So let me take one item at a time on this thread. You said the following:
[b]Geologists do not dispute that geologic events can happen quickly. Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are not mutually exclusive. Proving some geologic events happen quickly does not prove they all act quickly.
Since that is so then ...[text shortened]... fects of catastrophic events just to get long periods of time to support evolution is not valid.[/b]
These are two separate meanings. In the first sense we are talking about the pace of geologic change, and in the second sense we are talking about the rules changing (like, for example, the laws of physics being different in the past)
The second meaning is as true in geology as it is in radiometric dating or any other science. If you would rather we use the word gradualism for the geologic sense, we can do so, but otherwise you are using an equivocation fallacy.
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by PatNovakI am not interested in changing any laws or rules or changing the meaning of words. They are what they are.
You are conflating two definitions of the word uniformitarianism. Uniformitarian geology (also known as geologic gradualism) is the sense of the word we have been using up to this point (as your many comparisons of catastrophism and uniformitarianism in this thread prove). Now you are using uniformitarianism in a different sense, that the rules of the prese ...[text shortened]... alism for the geologic sense, we can do so, but otherwise you are using an equivocation fallacy.
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI am interested in debating ideas, not semantics. Give me your definitions of uniformitarianism and catastrophism and I will try to abide by them for the rest of the discussion.
I am not interested in changing any laws or rules or changing the meaning of words. They are what they are.
11 Jun 14
4 edits
Originally posted by PatNovakYou want my definitions or uniformitarianism and catastrophism.
I am interested in debating ideas, not semantics. Give me your definitions of uniformitarianism and catastrophism and I will try to abide by them for the rest of the discussion.
Okay, remember the subject has to do with TIME and determining how old or young the earth is.
Uniformitarianism is the idea that there is uniformity in the way things change over time. Uniformity means things change in a uniform manner, that is, the change is at a constant rate.
Catastrophism is the idea that things change suddenly.
I believe we both understand that neither of these ideas can be used exclusively to determine the age of the earth. Can we agree on that?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, so you are using highly non-standard meanings for those words.
You want my definitions or uniformitarianism and catastrophism.
Okay, remember the subject has to do with [bTIME and determining how old or young the earth is.
Uniformitarianism is the idea that there is uniformity in the way things change over time. Uniformity means things change in a uniform manner, that is, the change is at a constant ra ...[text shortened]... of these ides can be used exclusively to determine the age of the earth. Can we agree on that?[/b]
I recommend, for the purposes of the debate, ditching the contentious words
altogether and just talk about the underlying meanings.
So instead of saying "Uniformitarianism" RJHinds could say "uniformity in the way
things change over time" or similar."
The advantage of this is that you don't have to waste any time arguing over, and
establishing agreed meanings for the terms. And the terms are not hiding any meanings
and nobody can switch meanings mid thread and commit the equivocation fallacy.
This technique makes the conversation completely open and transparent, and can
allow you to argue about the topic at hand, and not on semantics or definitions.
11 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo I think we agree here that the key ideas are constant (or uniform) change over time vs. non-constant change over time.
You want my definitions or uniformitarianism and catastrophism.
Okay, remember the subject has to do with [b]TIME and determining how old or young the earth is.
Uniformitarianism is the idea that there is uniformity in the way things change over time. Uniformity means things change in a uniform manner, that is, the change is at a constant r ...[text shortened]... of these ideas can be used exclusively to determine the age of the earth. Can we agree on that?[/b]
I believe we both understand that neither of these ideas can be used exclusively to determine the age of the earth. Can we agree on that?
This is not something I can agree with. If something has a constant (or uniform) rate of change, it can be used to measure time, but if it has a non-constant rate of change, it cannot be used to measure time. The more constant the rate, the better it is as a time measure. Radioactive decay has one of the most constant rates of change of anything in science, and this is why it is used to measure the age of the Earth.
If something has a non-constant rate of change, then it isn't a reliable measure of time and should not be used to measure time. If the Earth followed a catastrophic geologic history, it would not have a constant rate of change and geology would be completely useless as a measurement of time.
Originally posted by PatNovakHowever, we know that there has been many catastrophic events in the Earth's history, so that would mean the uniformity would be messed up.
So I think we agree here that the key ideas are constant (or uniform) change over time vs. non-constant change over time.
[b]I believe we both understand that neither of these ideas can be used exclusively to determine the age of the earth. Can we agree on that?
This is not something I can agree with. If something has a constant (or uniform) rate ...[text shortened]... have a constant rate of change and geology would be completely useless as a measurement of time.[/b]
Anyway, this mass spectrometer is not a clock to measure time. As I understand it, this machine measures ions or isotopes of elements, not time. By measuring the ratio of parent isotope to daughter isotope in igneous and metamorphic rocks, an estimate of the age of the rock in years is calculated from a formula. Sedimentary rocks usually do not contain the radioisotopes needed for dating.
Even those that believe in radiometric dating admit that it is possible for radiometric methods to yield false dates. The following reason for false dating I obtained from a website on radiometric dating:
1. Loss of parent isotope: If some parent isotope leaks out of the rock then it will appear as if more parent has decayed than really has. This will increase the apparent age of the sample.
2. Loss of daughter isotope: If some daughter isotope leaks out it will appear as if less parent has decayed than really has. This will decrease the apparent age of the sample.
3. Addition of daughter isotope: If some daughter isotope was already present when the rock formed or if the sample is contaminated with daughter isotope (for example, lead introduced accidently to the sample) then the age of the sample will be inflated.
There may be more but I didn't bother searching to see, since you can do that yourself. Yhis was just to give you an idea where I am coming from on the fallacy of this radiometric dating fraud.