PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     ye-geology

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Call of Abraham                            1921 BC
The Exodus from Egypt                       1491 BC
The Foundations of Temple Laid          1012 BC
The Destruction of Jerusalem                 586 BC
The Birth of Christ                                      4 BC

Okay these are supported historical events

The Creation of the World                   4004 BC
The World Wide Flood                         2348 BC

These are not

If this date were true then the Flood occurs 300 years after the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty of ancient egypt and before the 4th and during the 5th dynasty. Yet when a global flood occurs in 2348 BC noone seems to notice. Ancient egyptian civilisation continues uninterupted past this date.

So is YEC attacking mainstream history as well as mainstream science?


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 7:50 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JM: You get the 'I swallow everything written by ye-creationists without researching award.

This from the guy who quotes himself as a reference source and engages in 'deceptive journalism'.

Meert on Radiometric Dating

You tout your first table as this big fascinating consistency on radiometric dating.  At least you have SOME credibilty as you add your ** caveat.  

The ** shows how it actually wasn't consistent.  How the first dates for that were not within the same range at all - but that's ok - we can just re-measure till we get the dates we want - is that it, Joe?  Just keep measuring until you get the date you 'knew' all along you should come up with?

As you can see from this AiG article, radiometric dating is based on assumptions.  Here we have Mt. St. Helens rocks formed in 1980's that are dated at 350,000 to 2.8 million years.  Obviously, radiometric dating fails misserably at giving accurate dates to rocks.  Here we have rocks we know the dates of (because we were there to observe it) and radiometric dating gives completely the wrong dates.  Yet, we claim that much older rocks, that we were not there to observe the formation of, are somehow very accurate.  B - as in B .... S as in S, my friend.  

Also - since you are discussing these radiometric dating methods here, I would assume you have formal training in radiometric dating - right?  I mean beyond your Geology training.  You date rocks for a living do you?  Isn't that what you said - Snelling was unqualified to speak to radiometric dating because he doesn't date the rocks himself - do you date the rocks yourself?  Just curious.  

Joe Meert resume

Didn't see any radio dating credentials on that resume.  

You don't have any Theology degrees, yet you manange to get your opinion in on discussions about the Bible -
Joe Meert on "The Bible"

What sort of training do you have in scripture, Joe - just curious.  Since you make noise like people can't speak to issues without formal training, I would assume that you are not a hypocrite and that since you are speaking about the Bible here you would have some formal theology training.    

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/tuppence.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#what

You sure do spend a lot of time arguing with creationists, Joe.  How do you find time for any real research or work when all you do is argue the same 5 or 6 points over and over (being sure to link to your self-researched, self-reference material).  


Joe Meert, an assistant professor of geology, earned his PhD from the University of Michigan in 1993. His research has focused on the Precambrian-early Paleozoic interval of geologic time (from roughly four billion to about 400 million years ago). His work examines how the Earth's magnetic field has evolved over time and how super continents might have assembled. Meert is teaching the Introduction to Geology course and First-Year Florida. In the future, he will teach exploration geophysics and some special topics related to geodynamics.

So, Joe, what life choices led you to want to be a teacher?  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:16 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void: If this date were true then the Flood occurs 300 years after the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty of ancient egypt and before the 4th and during the 5th dynasty. Yet when a global flood occurs in 2348 BC noone seems to notice. Ancient egyptian civilisation continues uninterupted past this date.

And where do the dates for those dynasties come from?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:48 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 8:16 PM on May 11, 2004 :
This from the guy who quotes himself as a reference source and engages in 'deceptive journalism'.


JM: Because I've written on the subject, it makes sense to use the material I've written rather than uncritically copying material.


You tout your first table as this big fascinating consistency on radiometric dating.  At least you have SOME credibilty as you add your ** caveat.  

The ** shows how it actually wasn't consistent.  How the first dates for that were not within the same range at all - but that's ok - we can just re-measure till we get the dates we want - is that it, Joe?  Just keep measuring until you get the date you 'knew' all along you should come up with?


JM: You didn't read the article, did you?  You just think you found some inconsistency and latched onto it in the false hope that you would win points.  Rocks, are natural systems.  Sometimes dating works better than others and it is up to the geologist to examine the materials for potential sources of error.  In this case, the pyrochlores were metamict and spongy.  The age with the pyrochlore samples still overlapped with the other ages so for all your huffing and puffing, you've discovered no inconsistency.

As you can see from this AiG article, radiometric dating is based on assumptions.  Here we have Mt. St. Helens rocks formed in 1980's that are dated at 350,000 to 2.8 million years.


JM: All this shows is that Steve Austin can collect xenoliths and date the inclusions rather than the eruptive product.  If you read the references he gives, this would have jumped out at you.  Austin either purposefully deceived or did not know what he was doing.  Either way, the article demonstrates that people who are not properly trained in petrology and radiometric dating can make mistakes.


Also - since you are discussing these radiometric dating methods here, I would assume you have formal training in radiometric dating - right?


JM: That would be fair, right?  I mean it's silly for me to label others incompetent if I have less or no training.

 I mean beyond your Geology training.  You date rocks for a living do you?  


JM: Yes, that would be correct.

Isn't that what you said - Snelling was unqualified to speak to radiometric dating because he doesn't date the rocks himself - do you date the rocks yourself?  Just curious.


JM: You're not curious, you're accusing.


Didn't see any radio dating credentials on that resume.  


JM: Did not look very hard, did you?  First, it helps to go to the correct site.  I have not been at Indiana State since 2001.   You don't do your homework very well, do you?

Meert, J.G., Nedelec, A. and Hall, C. , The stratoid granites of central Madagascar: Paleomagnetism and further age constraints on Neoproterozoic deformation, Precam. Res., 120, 101-129.

Meert, J.G., Nédélec, A., Hall, C.M., Wingate, M.T.D. and  Rakotondrazafy, Paleomagnetism, geochronology and tectonic implications of the Carion granite, central Madagascar, Tectonophys. v. 340, p 1-21.

Meert, J.G., Hall, C., Nedelec, A. and Razanatseheno, M.M, Cooling of a late-syn orogenic pluton: evidence from laser K-feldspar 40Ar/39Ar modeling of the Carion granite, Madagascar, Gondwana Research, 4:3, 541-550.

Meert, J.G., Torsvik, T.H., Eide, E.A. and Dahlgren, S., Tectonic significance of the Fen Province, S. Norway: Constraints from geochronology and paleomagnetism, J. Geology, 106, 553-564, 1998.

Torsvik, T.H., Eide, E.A., Meert, J.G., Smethurst, M.A., Walderhaug, H.J., The Oslo Rift: New Paleomagnetic and 40Ar/39Ar age constraints, Geophys. J. Int., 135, 1045-1059.

Meert, J.G. and Van der Voo, R., Paleomagnetic and 40Ar/39Ar study of the Sinyai Dolerite, Kenya: Implications for Gondwana Assembly, J. Geol, 104, 131-142, 1996.

Meert, J.G., Hargraves, R.B., Van der Voo, R., Hall, C.M. and A.N. Halliday, Paleomagnetic and 40Ar/39Ar studies of Late Kibaran Intrusives in Burundi, East Africa: Implications for Late proterozoic supercontinents, J. Geol., 102, 621-637.

and also,

Meert, J.G. A Synopsis of Events Related to the Assembly of Eastern Gondwana, Tectonophysics, 362, 1-40.

that paper contains a database of more than 1150 age determinations, each one evaluated for its quality.

Furthermore, I was trained in geochronologic methods by Alex Halliday (perhaps one of, if not the top geochronologist in the world) and Chris Hall (one of the most innovative Ar/Ar geochronologists in the world).  You really are one of the worst researchers I've seen on these debate boards.  You have trouble getting the simple facts correct.

You don't have any Theology degrees, yet you manange to get your opinion in on discussions about the Bible -


JM: Yes, but I don't claim to be a world's expert, do I?  Did you find factual inaccuracies in that post?  Are not the books of the bible agreed upon by human council?  Did some books in early bibles get left out of later bibles?  Please correct me on any factual errors in the post.  Do YOU have theological training?


What sort of training do you have in scripture, Joe - just curious.


JM: Some Hebrew, son of missionaries, lots of self study and reading.  However, despite that I never speak about the bible as an expert.  I also do not publish books on theology or the bible.  I don't pretend to be something that I am not.

Since you make noise like people can't speak to issues without formal training, I would assume that you are not a hypocrite and that since you are speaking about the Bible here you would have some formal theology training.  


JM: You twist words to try to make a point and in doing so, you make no point.  


You sure do spend a lot of time arguing with creationists, Joe.


JM: Yes, they promote bad science and theocracy.  Both are dangerous.


 How do you find time for any real research or work when all you do is argue the same 5 or 6 points over and over (being sure to link to your self-researched, self-reference material).  


JM: I budget my time.  I write answers that I can refer back to with ease rather than retype it to every half-wit creationist who makes silly, unresearched allegations.  Why?


So, Joe, what life choices led you to want to be a teacher?  



JM: To help people like you learn how to properly research a topic.  To make sure that our young people are properly equipped to survive in a technical world, but mostly to share knowledge with those who have a desire to learn.  What life choices led you to be a poor antagonist?

Cheers

Joe Meert




(Edited by Joe Meert 5/12/2004 at 2:56 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:11 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Joe:

gup: what just happened here is called a whuppin'.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 10:50 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

me apologizes for poor research and recieves correction with humily (For TQ's benefit, he can read that as 'i accept my whoopin')


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:14 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now that I have regained my composure -

JM: You didn't read the article, did you?  You just think you found some inconsistency and latched onto it in the false hope that you would win points.  Rocks, are natural systems.  Sometimes dating works better than others and it is up to the geologist to examine the materials for potential sources of error.  In this case, the pyrochlores were metamict and spongy.  The age with the pyrochlore samples still overlapped with the other ages so for all your huffing and puffing, you've discovered no inconsistency.

I did in fact read the article.  It displays clearly that creationists are not imagining things when we say that readings that don't line up with the evolutionary paradigm are 'shoved in a drawer' and a rock is retested until the right date comes up.  The previous dates didn't line up (even within tolerances) of the other dates.  It begs the question - if those dates were wrong - how many dates came back wrong and were discarded because they were (to the geochronologis) clearly 'wrong'.  

Since, Joe, you say you are an expert - and have sufficently demonstrated so in your 'resume' - I would put the question to you.  Does it ever happen that you date a rock and get results that don't make sense?  Do you then try to 'figure out what you did wrong' as to why the date was bad?  How often do you get the dates you are looking for 'on the first try'.  Also - wouldn't you agree that there are assumptions that must be made for any dating to work?

I think it would be interesting to see how many times a date is re-worked from the 'first try' to the published results - each and every time.  

Also, Joe - another question in that regard.  Are there different testing methods for rocks assumed to be 60 million years old, as opposed to rocks that are assumed to be 10 years old?  How do these methods differ?  What are the different assumptions that go into the dating?

That, of course is a pointed question.  So as to avoid your accusation of asking 'trapping' questions - my point is - what assumptions must be made differently for rocks that we know to be 60 million years old, compared to rocks that we know to be 10 years old?  If the earth is in fact only 6000 years old wouldn't we be 'making the wrong assumptions' and doing the wrong tests.  Isn't it true that the test for a 60 million year old rock is different from the test for a 6000 year old rock?  If you were testing 6000 year old rocks with a 60 million year old rock method, what would you expect to find?  If a 6000 year old rock got the rating/date of a 60 million year old rock, what would you assume was wrong with the test?

JM: Do YOU have theological training?

Indeed I do.  I have several years of Bible Institute training, as well as a year of undergrad theology training.  I also have attended minister training classes (somewhat similar to catholic 'seminary') as well as having formal 'Bible' training back in the good ol' high school days (I went to private schools for the majority of my life).  

JM: Yes, they promote bad science and theocracy.  Both are dangerous.

This is your opinion.  Neither of these points have any basis in fact.  They are unsubstaciated broad generalizations and cannot be considered logical as there is no way to conclusive prove for or against.  Also - I would remind you that 'you are not an expert in theology - nor do you pretend to be' ... so how do you make the claim that creation science is 'bad theocracy' - are you now switching your stance on being an expert in theology?    
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:29 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the first three quarters of this post have been beaten into you before gup, but if Joe wants to answer (even though you won't believe his responses), more power to him.  I for one would like an authority to set you straight already.

(I went to private schools for the majority of my life).  

No kidding!
This is your opinion.  Neither of these points have any basis in fact.  They are unsubstaciated broad generalizations and cannot be considered logical as there is no way to conclusive prove for or against.

Study some history.

so how do you make the claim that creation science is 'bad theocracy'

What do you know, gup swallowed his foot again!  Let's look at the actual quote from Joe, shall we?
Yes, they promote bad science and theocracy.  Both are dangerous.

Oops!  Bad science and theocracy! See any difference here gup?



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:48 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think JM's sentence "Yes, they promote bad science and theocracy.  Both are dangerous" does not say bad theocracy.

He did not say bad theocracy, he said "bad science and theocracy.

Edit: TQ types so much faster than I do... :P

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/12/2004 at 7:52 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:50 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 7:29 PM on May 12, 2004 :
Now that I have regained my composure -


JM: Too bad you can't regain some basic knowledge of science.


I did in fact read the article.  It displays clearly that creationists are not imagining things when we say that readings that don't line up with the evolutionary paradigm are 'shoved in a drawer' and a rock is retested until the right date comes up.


JM: Which makes me think you did not, in fact, read it with an eye towards comprehension.  If the 'reading' was 'hidden in a drawer', then why is it published?  I will show your poor research (yet again).

 The previous dates didn't line up (even within tolerances) of the other dates.


JM: Indeed they do, the ages are all between 530-590 Ma.  They do not range from 0 to 4.5 billion.  The ages fall in a narrow range, they are not all over the place.  In addition, you should note that the earliest determined ages and the most recently determined ages all fall within an even narrower range.  The rocks that gave the lower age were closely examined by Dahlgren who noticed that the pyrochlores were metamict and spongy and likely caused the younger ages.  When those samples were removed in the analysis, the ages tightened up.  None of the results were ''hidden".  Imagine you walk into a buidling.  You wonder what time it is.  Nearly every clock you look at gives a time ranging from 5:50 to 6:00 pm.  One clock gives the time at 5:25.  Now, it's possible that the one clock is correct and all the others are wrong, but upon examination you find that the clock reading 5:25 has a bad spring.  Do you declare all clocks 'bad' and untrustworthy?  Do you demand that we return to hourglasses?


 It begs the question - if those dates were wrong - how many dates came back wrong and were discarded because they were (to the geochronologis) clearly 'wrong'.  


JM: The onus is on you to prove this is done.  I've not seen it happen.  If you look carefully at papers, you'll see all ages reported with a description of why the ages are distributed as they are.  For example, in my stratoid granite paper, we noticed that the biotites we dated had some rims of chlorite (chlorite is an alteration product of biotite).  When we closely examined the spectra, we found that all the younger ages were associated with increased chlorine content in the biotite. The point is that your conspiracy hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis with no evidence.  You made some lame attempt to say that the Andersen and Taylor results were hidden when they were not.  




Since, Joe, you say you are an expert - and have sufficently demonstrated so in your 'resume' - I would put the question to you.  Does it ever happen that you date a rock and get results that don't make sense?


JM: Yes, as I noted above it does happen.  Careful selection of minerals helps to avoid this as does good microscope and cathodoluminescence work.  However, there are some weird ages.


 Do you then try to 'figure out what you did wrong' as to why the date was bad?


JM: The date is not 'bad'.  It may be disturbed, but it is an accurate reflection of the distribution of elements in the rock.  Yes, these ages are documented, published and discussed in the literature all the time.

 How often do you get the dates you are looking for 'on the first try'.


JM: This is a restatement of the conspiracy theory.  Most of the time I have no idea what the 'dates' are going to be until I run the rock.  Once in a while, I may suspect based on previous work in the area and relationships between the rocks that my age should be younger or older, but the ages are published 'as is'.

 Also - wouldn't you agree that there are assumptions that must be made for any dating to work?


JM: There are many assumptions that must be made to assure that I make it to work alive.  So?  If the assumptions are well grounded in evidence... if the research indicates that the assumptions are valid.... and if the assumptions are constantly tested by those using the methods, then I think it's fairly safe to say that there is not too much reason to worry.

I think it would be interesting to see how many times a date is re-worked from the 'first try' to the published results - each and every time.


JM: In my own experience, this does not happen very often due to cost and labor questions.  However, most labs will run replicates of a sample to give more confidence to the results.  The website I posted also shows that ages obtained independently from different labs on the same rocks using different methods supports the fact that the assumptions are valid and the methods work.  

Cheers

Joe Meert

(Edited by Joe Meert 5/12/2004 at 9:55 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:00 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Continuing on...

Also, Joe - another question in that regard.  Are there different testing methods for rocks assumed to be 60 million years old, as opposed to rocks that are assumed to be 10 years old?  How do these methods differ?


JM: Of course, a 10 year old rock is probably dated by asking around to see when it formed.  An older rock would require radiometric methods.


That, of course is a pointed question.  So as to avoid your accusation of asking 'trapping' questions - my point is - what assumptions must be made differently for rocks that we know to be 60 million years old, compared to rocks that we know to be 10 years old?


JM: If we know how old they are, then this question makes no sense.  

 If the earth is in fact only 6000 years old wouldn't we be 'making the wrong assumptions' and doing the wrong tests.


JM: Nope, the rocks would answer the questions for us.  We would not get self consistent ages for the rocks as they appear in the geologic column

Isn't it true that the test for a 60 million year old rock is different from the test for a 6000 year old rock?  If you were testing 6000 year old rocks with a 60 million year old rock method, what would you expect to find?


JM: Very low levels of daughter product and essentially a zero age.   Most likely our age would show up in a number of ways (a) too low an age (zero age) (b) huge errors on the age or (c) too old an age due to small amounts of contamination.

If a 6000 year old rock got the rating/date of a 60 million year old rock, what would you assume was wrong with the test?


JM: That a creationist did the work.


Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:27 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lastly, on the issue of assumptions, it seems to me that more assumptions rest on your side.  There is no scientific evidence favoring a 6000 year old earth so you begin with the a priori assumption that it is based upon someone else's interpretation of scripture.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:42 AM on May 13, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void: If this date were true then the Flood occurs 300 years after the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty of ancient egypt and before the 4th and during the 5th dynasty. Yet when a global flood occurs in 2348 BC noone seems to notice. Ancient egyptian civilisation continues uninterupted past this date.

And where do the dates for those dynasties come from?


Written history, the egyptians had a date system and the dates of rule of pharoahs (or length of rule) were inscribed on their tombs. Then you have dates for battles, dates for building projects and names of heirs
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 4:21 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Written history, the egyptians had a date system and the dates of rule of pharoahs (or length of rule) were inscribed on their tombs. Then you have dates for battles, dates for building projects and names of heirs

Is this 'written historical record' more complete than Biblical geneologies (read 'biblical written history')?  Does that record co-incide with the Biblical account in any way?  Is the Egyptian record more reliable - for example - Hebrew scribes had to copy the scriptures so exactingly that if there was the slightest discrepencies (in grammer, form, structure, or penmanship) the entire scroll was destroyed and they had to start again.  Can we see the same level of accuracy and attention to detail  demonstrated in the Egyptian record?


Joe - I see you avoided answering the gist of the questions by claiming some conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.  Perhaps you didn't have 'canned' responses to those questions.

How many rock formations have you seen that have been radiometricly dated to have formed within the last 500 years?

JM: If we know how old they are, then this question makes no sense.

It speaks to consistency and accuracy.  How can you calibrate the accuracy of your methods when you never test it on rocks that you KNOW the age of?

Your radiometric methods can be consistent as can be, but if it inflates the dates of 20 year old rocks by a magnitude of hundreds of thousands and millions, one has to ask the question - If it can't accurately date rocks we know the age of, how can it accurately date rocks we don't know the age of?

In fact, the older the rock is, the more time for contamination.  

JM: Of course, a 10 year old rock is probably dated by asking around to see when it formed.  An older rock would require radiometric methods.

Can a 10 year old rock be radiometrically dated, and if so - how would this process be different from dating a 60 million year old rock, and why?


JM: Too bad you can't regain some basic knowledge of science.

[i]JM: That a creationist did the work.


I graciously admit my error and you retort with personal attacks.  I see my initial impressions about your personal character (with an 'eye towards' the lack thereof) were spot on, Joe.  


OccamsRazor / TQ:  He did not say bad theocracy, he said "bad science and theocracy.

I notice that Joe didn't 'set the record straight' in his reply whatsoever - therefore I can only assume that my impression of what he said was accurate (he tends to jump on inaccurate quotes/statments pretty readily).

Moreover, the word AND is typically an inclusory word - if you have a green house with blue trim and you say "was the house green and blue" you would answer YES.  If you say was the house green and red, you would say No.  The house was green, but it was not red, therefore the 'entire answer' would be no.  

The same is true with Electronics (my personal area of expertise).  With Logic gates you have AND gates where both options must be true in order for the intended result.  YOu have OR gates where only one of two (or more) options must be true for the intended result.  When Joe says "bad science and theocracy" - I interpret as 'bad science and bad theocracy'.  According to LOGIC, this is the interpretation of an AND statement.  

As I said - he said nothing to correct this interpretation, so I would say it probably represents accurately the impression he was trying to give.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:42 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gup blows off historical records, since they don't agree with what he considers historical records (even though the Egyptian records are consistent with everything else we know)

Joe - I see you avoided answering the gist of the questions by claiming some conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

Actually, that was you.

How many rock formations have you seen that have been radiometricly dated to have formed within the last 500 years?


It don't work, as has been explained to you too many times to count

Your radiometric methods can be consistent as can be, but if it inflates the dates of 20 year old rocks by a magnitude of hundreds of thousands and millions, one has to ask the question - If it can't accurately date rocks we know the age of, how can it accurately date rocks we don't know the age of?

Once again, do you have any actual evidence to dispute the dates obtained besides the fact that they don't agree with a book that you find to be pretty neat?


I graciously admit my error

First time for everything

Gup, let me introduce a concept to you that you seem blissfully unaware of (despite the fact that everyone on here has pointed it out to you).  These little symbols-"_"- are calles "quotation marks.  They are magic symbols.  What they do is inform a reader that what they are seeing are not the words of the writer, but are actually the precise words spoken by somebody else.  When these magic symbols are used, it is called quoting.  When you quote, you are reproducing exactly what another person has said.  Ths means that you cannot put your interpretation of someone else's post in quotes and call it good.  What you are doing is misrepresenting their argument.

Besides which, who ever heard of a good theocracy?



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:41 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 6:42 PM on May 13, 2004 :


Is this 'written historical record' more complete than Biblical geneologies (read 'biblical written history')?  Does that record co-incide with the Biblical account in any way?  Is the Egyptian record more reliable - for example - Hebrew scribes had to copy the scriptures so exactingly that if there was the slightest discrepencies (in grammer, form, structure, or penmanship) the entire scroll was destroyed and they had to start again.  Can we see the same level of accuracy and attention to detail  demonstrated in the Egyptian record?



Yes, the Egyptian record is far, far, far more complete than the Bible.  Only in the Bible does it say that Shelah fathered Eber at age 30, we have no corroberation of this anywhere else. The Egyptians left thousands of records.  Everything from engravings on the pyramids to bills from shopkeepers.  The Egyptian climate is very good at preserving things.  We have extensive records going back to 3000 BC.  If the entire country had been wiped out in a flood, we'd know.

As for copying errors, I think we can be pretty sure that the pyramids are the originals, and so we can discount the possibility of transcription errors.  Honestly, did you even think before you asked that?  Seriously.  Or do you just spout anything that comes to mind, rather then actually consider evidence that you might be wrong.  And I know what you're going to say next (and no, it's not because I'm reading your mind, it's because you do it all the time).  Your next post, rather than addressing this, will say, "Oh yeah, but what about this totally other thing that's completely off topic."  Here's direct, concrete refutation of the flood; an unbroken chain of records going back 5000 years.  Proof positive that the world wasn't wiped out 4000 years ago.  Do you have anything to say about this?  Or am I right, and you're just going to change the subject?

(Edited by Kronus 5/13/2004 at 8:13 PM).
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:11 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

uh that doesnt prove the flood didn't happen, it just kind of puts a doubtner on it happening in the last 5000 years
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 9:49 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Bible's very clear here.  When Adam was 130, he fathered Seth.  At 105, Seth fathered Enosh.  At 90, Enosh fathered Kenan.  And so on and so on until Noah, in an unbroken line with ages for everyone.  1656 years after Adam was "born", a 600 year old Noah was getting on his ark.  If the world was created in 4004 BC, then the flood happened in 2348 BC.  It was either then, or every single page of the Bible doesn't tell the literal truth.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:45 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20:

Is this 'written historical record' more complete than Biblical geneologies (read 'biblical written history')?


Is that the same biblical geneolgy that refers to individuals with lifespans covering several hundred years? I suppose you are also going to tell us now how Anicent Egyptian history is unreliable and how we cannot trust the historical dates?

Your radiometric methods can be consistent as can be, but if it inflates the dates of 20 year old rocks by a magnitude of hundreds of thousands and millions, one has to ask the question - If it can't accurately date rocks we know the age of, how can it accurately date rocks we don't know the age of?


and

Can a 10 year old rock be radiometrically dated, and if so - how would this process be different from dating a 60 million year old rock, and why?


Or alternately, one could familiarise themselves with the margins of error associated with all radiometric dating

In fact, the older the rock is, the more time for contamination.


Age of a rock sample can pose problems for radiometric dating, but exactly what do you mean by "contamination"? 

I notice that Joe didn't 'set the record straight' in his reply whatsoever - therefore I can only assume that my impression of what he said was accurate (he tends to jump on inaccurate quotes/statments pretty readily).


Bit like you Gup?

Moreover, the word AND is typically an inclusory word - if you have a green house with blue trim and you say "was the house green and blue" you would answer YES.  If you say was the house green and red, you would say No.  The house was green, but it was not red, therefore the 'entire answer' would be no.  

The same is true with Electronics (my personal area of expertise).  With Logic gates you have AND gates where both options must be true in order for the intended result.  YOu have OR gates where only one of two (or more) options must be true for the intended result.  When Joe says "bad science and theocracy" - I interpret as 'bad science and bad theocracy'.  According to LOGIC, this is the interpretation of an AND statement.  

As I said - he said nothing to correct this interpretation, so I would say it probably represents accurately the impression he was trying to give.


Well Gup, you could be right, or alternatively you've nicely set yourself up for a spot more "whuppage".


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/13/2004 at 11:20 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:09 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 6:42 PM on May 13, 2004 :
I notice that Joe didn't 'set the record straight' in his reply whatsoever


JM: I saw no reason to beat a horse trying to escape from the glue factory with no legs, eyes or brain.

Cheers

Joe Meert


 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 12:57 AM on May 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yup, whupped again


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:15 AM on May 14, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, the Egyptian record is far, far, far more complete than the Bible.

Oh please... the Egyptians are known for 'blotting out' (read "deleting") embarrassing or unflattering information from their historical record.  It's all about making the Pharoh's look like gods.  What makes you trust that over the Bible's more complete literal record?  

The Bible says so and so begat so and so in the X year of their life.  So and so begat so and so in the X year of their life.  On and on and on.  It doesn't have to give the geneologies of every single person born - it's purpose is to see the line from the first created human being, Adam, to Jesus.  In doing so, it gives us a big picure view of the timeframe of the planet.  

OR:  Is that the same biblical geneolgy that refers to individuals with lifespans covering several hundred years?

Indeed.  Scientists have found that long life is genetic.  In fruit flies, for example, researchers can breed in and out long life for the population.  

We see that shortly after the flood, the life spans drop sharply from several centeries down to a max of about 120 years.  

Dr. Carl Wieland (MD) has written an article over at AiG on the possibility of long life spans.  

Here are two passages for you guys -

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.  
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.  

From these we can see that, if indeed the Bible is true (as YEC believe is the case) here is direct evidence that, at least where Biology and Geology is concerned, the uniformitarian principles of 'the way we see it today is as it always has been' is not true.  

OR:  Or alternately, one could familiarise themselves with the margins of error associated with all radiometric dating

The point is that we would date a 6000 year old rock drastically different than we would a 60 million year old rock - why?  Because the assumptions that go into the dating method would be drastically different.  Therefore, if we used a 60 million year old set of assumptions on a 6000 year old rock, we could safely say that it wouldn't come out to the 'correct date', even if the results were consistent.  In fact, most radiometric dating centers will advertise their inability to date 'young' rocks.  Well, if the Bible is true and all rocks on earth are in the neighborhood of 6000 years or less - then ANY date coming from that dating center would be wrong, wouldn't it?  Why?  Because the assumptions used to date the rocks are wrong.  The 'measurements' I am sure are accurate - but as usual with evolutionists the correct interpretation of the 'evidence' is lacking.  

OR:  Well Gup, you could be right, or alternatively you've nicely set yourself up for a spot more "whuppage".

I don't know how I could be 'wrong' in describing myself.  I described my impression of what Joe was saying - whether or not that is what he was trying to express is irrelevant to my stating why I thought what I thought.  Clearly, it is logical and has reason behind it.  

JM: I saw no reason to beat a horse trying to escape from the glue factory with no legs, eyes or brain.

And as I said before - Joe STILL has yet to contradict my interpretation, even though he had the opportunity here to tell us if he indeed holds the position that YEC is a bad theocracy - in which case I would certainly point out that Joe has no formal training in Theology.  ;)
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:00 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 5:00 PM on May 16, 2004 :
Yes, the Egyptian record is far, far, far more complete than the Bible.

Oh please... the Egyptians are known for 'blotting out' (read "deleting") embarrassing or unflattering information from their historical record.  It's all about making the Pharoh's look like gods.  What makes you trust that over the Bible's more complete literal record?  


I see you're unfamiliar with what makes a historical record complete.  It's not enough that it be contiguous.  If I wanted to I could write a very detailed and contiguous history of the Loudhorn family from Frogbottom Cove, giving daily activities for the entire clan going back 10 generations.  Of course, it would a be fake, as a quick glance at other documents, like an atlas or cencus would tell you.  

The Egyptians produced thousands of documents.  Everything from inscriptions on the pyramids to scraps of papyrus used to stuff the lower class mummies.  Of course some things had mistakes, and there were attempts at revisionist history.  But the exact details of what was said is irrelevant for this discussion.  All we're trying to establish here is a chronlogy, and when you have a hundred seperate scraps of papyrus that say "In the 15th year of the reign of King so and so" we can be pretty sure that king reigned for at least 15 years.  Piece all the documentation together and we know that the Egyptian civilization was around and flourishing when it was supposed to be under water.  Remember, we're not talking about embellishing some Pharohs resume to make him look good.  We're talking about killing every single person in Egypt, burying their entire civillization under on ocean, having the ocean withdraw and the land repopulate.  And not only to we not get any mention of this at all, we don't even see a gap in their records?  To quote you, oh please...
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:08 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's all about making the Pharoh's look like gods.  What makes you trust that over the Bible's more complete literal record?  

With this phrase, my irony meter exploded.

And as I said before - Joe STILL has yet to contradict my interpretation, even though he had the opportunity here to tell us if he indeed holds the position that YEC is a bad theocracy - in which case I would certainly point out that Joe has no formal training in Theology.  ;)

Joe is saying he saw no reason to point out how wrong you were when others had done so.  And once again, Joe did not say anything about a bad theocracy.  You are not only ignorant, you are deceitful.  You were corrected on this, yet here you are trying sneak it in again


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:15 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll start with your link to AiG:



Hmmm... this graph is worthless. Sorry to be blunt, but if you are looking to study average age of a population over time, you need a few more individuals in your sample. 50 or so people over 6000 years, doesn't really cut it. And then of course there is the historical acceptability and biological plausability of the early biblical lifespans...

Also this bit from the article:

"Looking at the drop in lifespans after the Flood, it is natural to think that it must be related to the world having changed so drastically. Evidence from the fossil record does suggest that carbon dioxide (also possibly oxygen) levels were higher in the pre-Flood world."

So lets get this straight- this article is suggesting higher concentrations of CO2 are beneficial to human life? Thats interesting to say the least.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.  
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.  

From these we can see that, if indeed the Bible is true (as YEC believe is the case) here is direct evidence that, at least where Biology and Geology is concerned, the uniformitarian principles of 'the way we see it today is as it always has been' is not true.


I don't see how your passage (Gen 2:5- 2:6) can transcend a belief that we can discount a large number of observations about our natural environment.

The point is that we would date a 6000 year old rock drastically different than we would a 60 million year old rock - why?


No Gup, the point is we do not! aside from the fact you have not made an effort to read up on dating techniques, you have a completely skewed view of the concept. Assuming we are looking at the same isotope ratios for both examples you give, the techniques employed are the same.

Because the assumptions that go into the dating method would be drastically different.  Therefore, if we used a 60 million year old set of assumptions on a 6000 year old rock, we could safely say that it wouldn't come out to the 'correct date', even if the results were consistent.  In fact, most radiometric dating centers will advertise their inability to date 'young' rocks.


And, if you read up on margins of error associated with the techniques it is blatantly obvious why.

Well, if the Bible is true and all rocks on earth are in the neighborhood of 6000 years or less - then ANY date coming from that dating center would be wrong, wouldn't it?  Why?  Because the assumptions used to date the rocks are wrong.  The 'measurements' I am sure are accurate - but as usual with evolutionists the correct interpretation of the 'evidence' is lacking.


Okay right, sure. I suppose the fact some of the same assumptions are used in the design of smoke alarms causes you no cause for concern? So then stength of your arguement as usual boils down to "I think the world is 6000 years old, I will arbiterially pick and choose what I deem to be correct to fit this assumption".

I don't know how I could be 'wrong' in describing myself.  I described my impression of what Joe was saying - whether or not that is what he was trying to express is irrelevant to my stating why I thought what I thought.  Clearly, it is logical and has reason behind it.


No, you deliberatley tried to find fault where there was none. But whatever suits you.

And as I said before - Joe STILL has yet to contradict my interpretation, even though he had the opportunity here to tell us if he indeed holds the position that YEC is a bad theocracy - in which case I would certainly point out that Joe has no formal training in Theology.  ;)


I don't think any comment on your "bad theocracy" is needed, other than to point out you misread what was written.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/17/2004 at 05:56 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 05:55 AM on May 17, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.