Radioactive Half-life measurement

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, the decay constants of different radioactive elements are different, we know this because they emit different amounts of energy. If there had been a big reset at a flood or some other hypothetic anomoly then the dates yielded for rocks, the earth etc just wouldn't match.

The only dates that you've shown radiometric dating to be wrong on are on ...[text shortened]... ve no proof whatsoever for your ideas. Admit defeat, you're just making yourself look daft.

This wibsite goes into very great detail dismantling the dating game. It addresses all the points I have raised in great detail. As you don’t seem to get what I am trying to tell you, I suggest that you read it very carefully before you get back to me with some other red herring.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
This wibsite goes into very great detail dismantling the dating game. It addresses all the points I have raised in great detail. As you don’t seem to get what I am trying to tell you, I suggest that you read it very carefully before you get back to me with some other red herring.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

What I love best is how it tries its best to show even 10% uncertainty in dates and then claims that this accounts for dates being nearly 9 orders of magnitudes out compared to the 6000 year old earth.

Get real dj. Trueorigins isn't even good at pretending to be real science.

Originally posted by dj2becker
This wibsite goes into very great detail dismantling the dating game. It addresses all the points I have raised in great detail. As you don’t seem to get what I am trying to tell you, I suggest that you read it very carefully before you get back to me with some other red herring.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Sorry, but this guy makes too many stupid errors that I've refuted and covered many times already. For instance he asserts that a young rock will have only parent in it and no daughter, and if this isn't the case the rate will be wrong. But this isn't the way that the starting parent daughter isotope ratio is calculated. You get a piece of non-radioactive rock (which has therefore underwent no decay) in the same strata (and therefore necassarily the same age, or all geology is wrong too), and simply measure that. There is your start point. Easy.

Even if his points were valid (which they typically aren't) it [i]still wouldn't exaplain why we can date the earth and moon to the nearest 50 million years (out of 4.5 billion). Why the synchrony?

Come on Professor deej, stop with all the "but, if's...." give us some solid scientifically proven fact! And that re-write of physical, chemistry, biology and geography that you've inadvertantly promised us!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Sorry, but this guy makes too many stupid errors that I've refuted and covered many times already. For instance he asserts that a young rock will have only parent in it and no daughter, and if this isn't the case the rate will be wrong. But this isn't the way that the starting parent daughter isotope ratio is calculated. You get a piece of non-radioa ...[text shortened]... te of physical, chemistry, biology and geography that you've inadvertantly promised us!

You don't want me to tell you the obvious about the geologic column?

Originally posted by dj2becker
This wibsite goes into very great detail dismantling the dating game. It addresses all the points I have raised in great detail. As you don’t seem to get what I am trying to tell you, I suggest that you read it very carefully before you get back to me with some other red herring.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

In the fifties they got an age for the earth (4.5 billion) that was older than what was then the estimate for the age of the universe. After a while they realized they'd failed to take into account that there could be two types of Cephid varible star and corrected the calculation. While it's possible that we'll discover something else that throws out the figures, it won't change them by more that an order of magnitude at the extreme.

You really won't get anywhere trying to argue that the whole of modern science is wrong because it disagrees with the bible's account. Science involves an element of doubt, and people disagree over it, but for the measurement of the age of the earth to be incorrect by the amount you need it to be would either mean that too much of our science is wrong to get correct answers for our technology to work; or that God created the universe to look as if it is 20 billion years old presumeably as some kind of practical joke, which you'd be far better arguing for as it has the advantage of being totally unrefutable.

In any case the 6,000 figure was reached by counting generations of people in the somewhat dubious geneology given in the Old Testament; at most it dates how old humanity is.

Originally posted by DeepThought

You really won't get anywhere trying to argue that the whole of modern science is wrong because it disagrees with the bible's account.
A better way of saying this would be:

"You won't get anywhere trying to argue that contemporary dating processes are in error because they disagree with an incorrect reading of the Biblical account."

Young earth proponents refuse to allow the Bible to interpret itself, and compound their error by forcing square pegs into round holes. Were they to able to read the Genesis account as it is written, their problems would evaporate.

Both Baade and Sandage made two significant adjustments to their 'star date' method. Although there is little doubt as to honest effort, perhaps science would be better served with a simple utterance prior to every declaration: as near as we can tell.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You don't want me to tell you the obvious about the geologic column?

Well I do. Tell me the obvious about the geoligical column.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well I do. Tell me the obvious about the geoligical column.

"Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof."

There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evolutionary theory. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in, while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionarily statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

As we will see below, geologists admit that this circular reasoning exists as a fundamental pillar of geological faith. For example, in a 1979 interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

The paleontology director of the Field Museum in Chicago admits the problem exists.

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/12fos11.htm

Originally posted by dj2becker
"Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof."

There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evol ...[text shortened]... 983, p. 21.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/12fos11.htm

Er, ever heard of independent verification? Those fossils don't depend on just the strata, they can be independently dated by the C14 method which is good for 30,000 years or more, certainly longer than your sticking your head in the sand dating of the age of the earth to 6000 years. Thats what this is all about. You care nothing for actual science. You are only interested in blowing every crack in science up to a million times its actual size and don't care who or what you would bring down as long as you get your spoiled child wish: To force people to believe the way you want and to take over the government and get rid of that pesky separation of church and state thing. In short you want a chrisianized verson of Iran. You don't have the honesty to admit it however.

Originally posted by dj2becker
"Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof."

There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evol 983, p. 21.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/12fos11.htm

But that just a pile of lies deej.

YOU cited a paper to me, where they dated some fossils by the rocks they were in, the rocks were radiodated. YOU pointed this out to me. This is just lies, pure and simple.

You people wonder why athiests think that you guys are all liars!

[edit; and i've already refuted this a couple of times before! You can't rely on something after it's been repeatedly refuted, that's not the way a debate works. You, deej, are a spammer, pure and simple. STANG got banned for less.]

Originally posted by dj2becker
A global flood would reset the atomic clock.

If you conclude from the scientific evidence that a global flood did happen, you will get only thousand-year radiometric “dates” as a result. Radiometric “dates” are only as good as your assumptions.

A global flood would not make electrons behave differently. In order for an 'atomic clock'
to be 'reset', you need to change the rules of physics. If you are claiming that the rules
have indeed changed, where is the proof?

By contrast, dozens of independent sciences execute congruent conclusions every day that
rely on the rules' of physics not changing. How do you explain that?

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You really won't get anywhere trying to argue that the whole of modern science is wrong because it disagrees with the bible's account.
A better way of saying this would be:

"You won't get anywhere trying to argue that contemporary dating processes are in error because they disagree with an incorrect reading of the Biblical account."

Young ear ...[text shortened]... better served with a simple utterance prior to every declaration: as near as we can tell.[/b]

Nicely put. (Though, you and I may have disagreements on hermeneutical approaches sometimes, some kind of literalistic reading that attempts to turn the Biblical texts into a science textbook is not one of them)

Although there is little doubt as to honest effort, perhaps science would be better served with a simple utterance prior to every declaration: as near as we can tell.

I hope people notice the “little doubt as to honest effort” part of this sentence. Then again, when we start interpreting what the original writers of the Hebrew scriptures, for example, “really meant,” we might also want to add the words “as near as we can tell.”

Originally posted by vistesd
Nicely put. (Though, you and I may have disagreements on hermeneutical approaches sometimes, some kind of literalistic reading that attempts to turn the Biblical texts into a science textbook is not one of them)

Although there is little doubt as to honest effort, perhaps science would be better served with a simple utterance prior to every declaration ures, for example, “really meant,” we might also want to add the words “as near as we can tell.”

There's part of the Gospel of Truth that comes close to explaining creation in a non-mathematical manner. Reading it and having a rudimentary acquaintance with quantum theory its easy to see the signs of gauge fields. If only Valentinus had in his repertoire some serious math, we might all be Gnostic. However, Valentinus still would have missed the main point because he thought Christ was bigger than what He had said He was.

Originally posted by frogstomp
There's part of the Gospel of Truth that comes close to explaining creation in a non-mathematical manner. Reading it and having a rudimentary acquaintance with quantum theory its easy to see the signs of gauge fields. If only Valentinus had in his repertoire some serious math, we might all be Gnostic. However, Valentinus still would have missed the main point because he thought Christ was bigger than what He had said He was.

I really have to look at Valentinus again. But it seems to me that what you’re talking about is at the heart of all the monistic streams.

Originally posted by dj2becker
There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evolutionary theory. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in, while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionarily statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by t ...[text shortened]... evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

Please keep in mind that much of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with fosils or the past but observations that can be made about species living today. The dating or even existance of fosils is not central to Evolutionary theory but rather usefull in understanding the history of living things.

Also you often seem to categorise geologists as a subset of evolutionists.

What makes me surprised is the way you shy away from the concept that maybe God created the world with rocks, fosils etc with all the correct proportions of radioactive materials etc to give the false impression that the earth was much older. Surely that would be easier than starting with the earth in some other form then using things like a global flood to carefully leach the correct proportions of elements into every single rock and fosil on the planet while simultaneously adjusting the physics to make the radio active decay rates match and also modifying the weather to make the tree rings, ice cores etc all look right. I would also like to know how all the freshwater fish survived that global flood and managed to all get back to thier specific lakes and rivers afterwards or did Noah have an aquarium on board that nobody told me about?