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
     Circular Reasoning

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

    
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationist asert that radiometric dating is based on circular reasoning.
Evolutionist claim it if empirical proof that stands on it's own without challenge.

One is right , the other wrong.

Let's take a look at that.

In order to be a fair test in the sample must be of unknown origin. No prior knowledge or assumption can be used.

After the testing is done we have a number representing the amount of a certain radioactive isotope.  How old is it ? At this point it is apparent that unless we can determine several things the experiment to date rocks and fossils has failed. We have to have some sort of calibration method to determine age.

The only way to do this is to have numerous similar samples from different places that we have a reliable historical date for.
Then we need to test them and find out how closely the results agree.
If they are very similar we can start our calibration chart and proceed.

This would be a scientific empirical test of the dating technique.

Anything that we do not have a reliable historic data for numerous samples of could not be tested without broad assumptions.

First of all we would have to assume to know how much of the isotope was present at the beginning which is impossible . Secondly we would have to know that nothing happened to the sample to add or reduce the quantity of the paticular isotope in the past. This is impossible to know.
So to date things beyond recorded history is impossible . A number can be generated but knowledge of it's relevance is not possible.

So how is it done? In the 19th Century the dogma of Unitarianism was created. That everything happens in the present happened exactly the same way in the past. That the world was formed from slow gradual change , there were no miracles from God and catastrophe was the exception.

So certan geologist put "dates " on certain fossils to detetmine the age of sediment.
When radiometric dating came along it used those dates as a means to build the calibration charts.
What this means is that radiometric dating is based on the circular logic of 19th century uniformitarianism that has lost much favor in science.

It is based on conjecture , on air, it has no real substance.

Without the wild and unscientific assumptions of the uniformitarianist geologist radiometric dating past known history would never have occured.

All you would have is a number but no corresponding date.

The readings between the many types of radiometric dating techniques on the same evidence is huge. The number of readings accepted as accurate is small. How do we know thet are not accurate? They disagree with the dates given the fossils and challenge evolution theory.

I do coke so I can work longer, so I can earn more money, so I can do more coke , so I can work longer , so I can earn more money so i can do more coke

This is the reasoning of geometric dating.

If any one would like to tell me how to disregard the geologic column and any pre-knowledge and date a sample of unknown origin I would like to hear it.
If it can't be done then the logic is definately circulsr.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 3:53 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

really I coundn't care less about your stupid two cents worth on radiometric dating because it has been a proven and effective use of dating (especially Carbon Dating which works on a solid principle rather than the circular logic you work off of on a regular basis.

Also, you are using circular logic due to the fact you assume if we are wrong you must be right // if we are right you must be wrong. Technically, we could both be wrong but Christians often tend to forget that and sometimes forget that they can be wrong most of the time.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:55 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 5:55 PM on May 31, 2005 :
really I coundn't care less about your stupid two cents worth on radiometric dating because it has been a proven and effective use of dating (especially Carbon Dating which works on a solid principle rather than the circular logic you work off of on a regular basis.
you don't care but you find it effective. Carbon dating you like better. Why? If Carbon Dating works on solid principle are you saying other methods do not. Please explain why Carbon Dating is based on solid principles.
Why do you claim my reasoning is circular. I maintain that creation or evolution are the only 2 possibilities. Do you wish to propose a third?

Also, you are using circular logic due to the fact you assume if we are wrong you must be right // if we are right you must be wrong. Technically, we could both be wrong but Christians often tend to forget that and sometimes forget that they can be wrong most of the time.

I do not see that as a possibility. To say there is a third possibility without any conception of one is illogical.
Are you saying evolution could be completely wrong?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:47 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 3:53 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Creationist asert that radiometric dating is based on circular reasoning.
Evolutionist claim it if empirical proof that stands on it's own without challenge.

Certainly the first statement is true,  but the second statement is not correct.

One is right , the other wrong.

I would say this is a false dichotomy.

Let's take a look at that.

In order to be a fair test in the sample must be of unknown origin. No prior knowledge or assumption can be used.

Why?  Context is key to understanding.

After the testing is done we have a number representing the amount of a certain radioactive isotope.  How old is it ? At this point it is apparent that unless we can determine several things the experiment to date rocks and fossils has failed. We have to have some sort of calibration method to determine age.

The only way to do this is to have numerous similar samples from different places that we have a reliable historical date for.
Then we need to test them and find out how closely the results agree.
If they are very similar we can start our calibration chart and proceed.


. . . clip

If any one would like to tell me how to disregard the geologic column and any pre-knowledge and date a sample of unknown origin I would like to hear it.
If it can't be done then the logic is definately circulsr.


OK, let's try this.  Fission track dating is used for glassy materials and minerals.  Naturally occuring uranium undergoes spontaneous fission at a very low rate.  The large amount of energy released causes damage in the sample that can be revealed by etching with acid, (usually hydroflouric).  After etching, the tracks are counted.  The sample is then bombarded with neutrons in a reactor, which causes fission in the remaining  uranium.  You have now measured the concentration of uranium in the sample.  Knowing the fission rate and the track density, you can calculate the age since the last time the sample temperature went over the annealing temperature.  

This technique is used for dating artifacts like obsidan arrowheads and pottery glazes, and used extensively in oil exploration since a detailed analysis can give the thermal history of the rock by looking a partially annealed tracks.



(Edited by Apoapsis 6/1/2005 at 06:32 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 06:30 AM on June 1, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 06:30 AM on June 1, 2005 :
e
Certainly the first statement is true,  but the second statement is not correct..


.
I would say this is a false dichotomy.
When choosing between 2 opposites one is right or both are wrong.

Why?  Context is key to understanding.
There are millions of theistic evolutionist who would disagre but that is another story :} .
What you say is true if you are reading a book, not inthis case. To create a calibration chart you must have something concrete to compare. In this case it is imaginary dates created by 19th century people with no possible way of knowing if they were right. The fact that radiometric dating "proved"  they were right is Prima Facia evidence that the calibration charts were contrived.


OK, let's try this.  Fission track dating is used for glassy materials and minerals.  Naturally occuring uranium undergoes spontaneous fission at a very low rate.  The large amount of energy released causes damage in the sample that can be revealed by etching with acid, (usually hydroflouric).  After etching, the tracks are counted.  The sample is then bombarded with neutrons in a reactor, which causes fission in the remaining  uranium.  You have now measured the concentration of uranium in the sample.  Knowing the fission rate and the track density, you can calculate the age since the last time the sample temperature went over the annealing temperature.  

This technique is used for dating artifacts like obsidan arrowheads and pottery glazes, and used extensively in oil exploration since a detailed analysis can give the thermal history of the rock by looking a partially annealed tracks.



(Edited by Apoapsis 6/1/2005 at 06:32 AM).

That is a very good description of a technique. It does not change the fact the calibration is based on circularity or the fact the likelihood of the results agreeing with any other acceptable test of the same sample is infinitesimal.
Regardless of the results if they conflict with preconceived notions of what they expected to find they are ignored.
For instance the volcanic rock from New Zealand , Hawaii, Mt. St. Helens and other places that has been repeatedly given dates of 100's of thousands to billions of years althought none of it is over 200 years.
This constitues empirical evidence the methods are false. Repeating the test produces the same results time after time.
Same is true with radiocarbon testing of coal.  If it were millions of years old it would not register with that method. It does time after time after time.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:52 AM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 08:52 AM on June 1, 2005 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 06:30 AM on June 1, 2005 :

Certainly the first statement is true,  but the second statement is not correct..


.
I would say this is a false dichotomy.
When choosing between 2 opposites one is right or both are wrong.


However, as I pointed out, your second statement is incorrect, and until you correctly posit it , you cannot use it to draw a logical conclusion.

For instance,  you cannot ask if a car is white or black when it is blue.




(Edited by Apoapsis 6/1/2005 at 09:15 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:11 AM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 08:52 AM on June 1, 2005 :
That is a very good description of a technique. It does not change the fact the calibration is based on circularity or the fact the likelihood of the results agreeing with any other acceptable test of the same sample is infinitesimal.


On what do you base this conclusion.  Please specifically state the circular assumtions being made while using this technique.

Are you stating that it is circular because you have read this in creationist literature or because you fully understand the technique?



(Edited by Apoapsis 6/1/2005 at 09:32 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:13 AM on June 1, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

]Quote from Apoapsis at 09:13 AM on June
Are you stating that it is circular because you have read this in creationist literature or because you fully understand the technique?



(Edited by Apoapsis 6/1/2005 at 09:32 AM).
The first clue that all  dating requires circular logic is the shear number of techniques and how they are selected for a paticular purpose.

Coal for example is said to be millions of years old by evolututionist. Therefore they use a method such as potassium-argon . Therefore the results are millions of years. This is circular reasoning.

The creationist reasoning for using c-14 dating on coal samples is arguably circular as well. However the fact that coal almost invariably give a date with c-14 means something is wrong. C-14 is a worthless method, potassium-argon is worthless, they are both worthless.
The difference in the dates of the same material is often a thousand to one. 40k to 4ma.
Looking at the context as you mentioned earlier Argomme National Labratories can and does make high grade coal in as little as a month in the lab. Therefore there is no scientific basis for saying coal is millions of years old.
Except for the circular reasoning the earth is millions of years old.

Creationist and evolutionist both use circular reasoning when describing how old the earth looks.
The evolutionist says the earth "look" millions of years old. This is silly as noone could possibly know what a planet millions of years looks like.

By the same token the YEC says it looks 6 - 10k years old. This is also silly for the same reason.

Where is really gets silly is when a YEC says the earth is young but looks old.

Everyone is silly when they say 6 - 10k years old is young. That is a very , very long time.












-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:35 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is not a discussion of circularity, that is a tirade of complaints that all of the methods get results that you do not like.  I suspect you picked up this argument in creationist literature rather than from any basic understanding.

Please point out any circularity in the method I described.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:18 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:18 AM on June 2, 2005 :
That is not a discussion of circularity, that is a tirade of complaints that all of the methods get results that you do not like.  I suspect you picked up this argument in creationist literature rather than from any basic understanding.

Please point out any circularity in the method I described.




The assumption of the accuracy of the method is based on comparing the results against other methods.
How can you know that millions or billions of years are true?
If you torture data it will usually confess.

It's kind of like arguing if evolution , intelligent design, or creation , or all three should be taught in public school.

The real question is should there be public schools.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:55 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2005 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 09:18 AM on June 2, 2005 :
That is not a discussion of circularity, that is a tirade of complaints that all of the methods get results that you do not like.  I suspect you picked up this argument in creationist literature rather than from any basic understanding.

Please point out any circularity in the method I described.




The assumption of the accuracy of the method is based on comparing the results against other methods.
How can you know that millions or billions of years are true?
If you torture data it will usually confess.

It's kind of like arguing if evolution , intelligent design, or creation , or all three should be taught in public school.

The real question is should there be public schools.


It has been very interesting reading your oppinion, Peddler.  I'm quite intrigued with the different viewpoints on this forum.  However, personally, I believe that the universe is old.  I believe that if someone reads the narrative of creation in the Bible while looking at the meanings of the original hebrew, you can more easily come to the conclusion of an old earth.  For example, the word for "day" in hebrew can also mean a period of time of unspecified length, or "age".  In reference to Noah's flood, the word for "world" in hebrew also can mean land or nation.  I believe that you really have to be discerning when reading the the historical aspect of the bible to find out exactly what it is saying.  
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 1:56 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2005 :


The assumption of the accuracy of the method is based on comparing the results against other methods.
How can you know that millions or billions of years are true?
If you torture data it will usually confess.

It's kind of like arguing if evolution , intelligent design, or creation , or all three should be taught in public school.

The real question is should there be public schools.


Now you are discussing accuracy, not circularity.

Specifically, where is the circularity in the fission track method?  Or do you admit that there isn't any???





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:17 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 1:56 PM on
It has been very interesting reading your oppinion, Peddler.  I'm quite intrigued with the different viewpoints on this forum.  However, personally, I believe that the universe is old.  I believe that if someone reads the narrative of creation in the Bible while looking at the meanings of the original hebrew, you can more easily come to the conclusion of an old earth.  For example, the word for "day" in hebrew can also mean a period of time of unspecified length, or "age".  In reference to Noah's flood, the word for "world" in hebrew also can mean land or nation.  I believe that you really have to be discerning when reading the the historical aspect of the bible to find out exactly what it is saying.  

Personnally I don't see what you mean by more easily coming to this conclusion. It seems to me you are using the same circularity the evolutionist do. If one did not have an opinion of how old the earth is the conclusion you come to would never be reached. The Theistic evolutionist and people like High Ross teach what you are saying about the Hebrew word day . I know quite a few orthodox Jews and my best friend is a Messianic Jew. They all read Hebrew and say that the passage means a literal 24 hour day and although many Jews do not necessarily believe it is true allmost all of them say that was what the author meant.

If you compare it's use throughout the Bible it means 24 hour day in more than 300 places and other than that in less than 10 if I remember right.

The Masoretic text genologies make this belief in very long ages impossible.

Allthough you can argue that it does not really matter it does. For instance if you use the same reasoning then the Sabbath could be a million years. The Bible is true or it is not.

One of the arguments I hear from Ross that really bothers me is the thousand years in 2nd Peter 3. That is talking about the return of Christ and means that God is outside of time. He ignores the rest of the verse that talks about the willful ignorance of those that deny the flood in the latter days.
2Pe 3:3  Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Your thoughts?





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:43 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting from another thread, but the comment is appropriate to this one. . .

Quote from peddler8111 at 08:30 AM on June 2, 2005 :
Silence is submission.
Looks like you stumped the band Captain.
Good job!




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:21 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:21 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Quoting from another thread, but the comment is appropriate to this one. . .

Quote from peddler8111 at 08:30 AM on June 2, 2005 :
Silence is submission.
Looks like you stumped the band Captain.
Good job!


I have no clue what you are trying to say.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:20 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:17 PM on June 2, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2005 :


The assumption of the accuracy of the method is based on comparing the results against other methods.
How can you know that millions or billions of years are true?
If you torture data it will usually confess.

It's kind of like arguing if evolution , intelligent design, or creation , or all three should be taught in public school.

The real question is should there be public schools.


Now you are discussing accuracy, not circularity.

Specifically, where is the circularity in the fission track method?  Or do you admit that there isn't any???









-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:22 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:20 PM on June 3, 2005 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 09:21 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Quoting from another thread, but the comment is appropriate to this one. . .

Quote from peddler8111 at 08:30 AM on June 2, 2005 :
Silence is submission.
Looks like you stumped the band Captain.
Good job!


I have no clue what you are trying to say.
By saying that I meant no one has dared to try to refute Captains post on the information in DNA-maybe you should.









-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:23 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:17 PM on June 2, 2005 :

Now you are discussing accuracy, not circularity.

Specifically, where is the circularity in the fission track method?  Or do you admit that there isn't any???





Now I see your point. Very well.

Uranium 238 can be removed from a rock by water. If a sample loses 99 percent of its uranium, then the fission track date will be 100 times too old.
How do we determine this has happened? Simple we check the presumed date of the artifact against evolutionary time lines and if it is "in the range" we accept it. If it is not we reject it. This is circular reasoning.
The only evidence we have that these test are accurate is if they match with evolutionary time lines.
There are lots of other factors that can affect the date acheived , cracks can be easily misinterpreted as well.

The possibility of 100 to one mistakes makes this process science fiction, not science.




(Edited by peddler8111 6/3/2005 at 12:37 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:34 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Uranium 238 can be removed from a rock by water. If a sample loses 99 percent of its uranium, then the fission track date will be 100 times too old.


Ok, why don't you look up the measured diffusion rate of uranium out of these types of materials and find out how long it would take to lose 99%.   You'll be looking at time scales waaay longer than what we are talking about.

No circularity here, just quibbling on accuracy.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:58 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Apoapsis at 12:58 PM on June

Ok, why don't you look up the measured diffusion rate of uranium out of these types of materials and find out how long it would take to lose 99%.   You'll be looking at time scales waaay longer than what we are talking about.

No circularity here, just quibbling on accuracy.


In fact, if a rock loses only about 1/350 of its uranium each year, then in 4000 years only one part in one hundred thousand of the uranium will remain, meaning that the date can approach a hundred thousand times too old. Now, 1/350 of the uranium each year is not much, especially when you consider that water occurs practically everywhere in the earth below a few hundred feet, and rocks shallower than this also become wet due to rainfall filtering down through the soil."

This does address the accuracy , or better yet credibility of this method. The circularity comes about in how we determine if a paticular sample has been "contaminated" and is therefore invalid.
Simple , we check the date against the evolutionary timeline and if it agrees it is valid , if not it is "contaminated" .
There is no other possible way to know this.
Also you have the original and unknowable factor in all dating methods -How much of the isotope existed in the first place.

Without a fossil or artifact to compare it with it is a worthless exercis`e to measure isotopes unlesss your goal is to exploit them by mining etc.

The whole idea of radiometric dating would be impossible without the 19th century geologic timelines to begin with. There is no possible way to even conceive of a method to date objects theoretically millions of years old without circularity.

The rocks date the fossils , the fossils date the rocks better.

I do coke so I can work longer, so I can do more coke , so I can work longer

The principle is the same. It is a neccesary exercise to support naturalism.







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:47 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:47 PM on June 3, 2005 :
In fact, if a rock loses only about 1/350 of its uranium each year, then in 4000 years only one part in one hundred thousand of the uranium will remain, meaning that the date can approach a hundred thousand times too old.


But it won't lose it at that rate.  Not even close.

Look it up.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:51 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 1:51 PM on June 3, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 1:47 PM on June 3, 2005 :
In fact, if a rock loses only about 1/350 of its uranium each year, then in 4000 years only one part in one hundred thousand of the uranium will remain, meaning that the date can approach a hundred thousand times too old.


But it won't lose it at that rate.  Not even close.

Look it up.



The only way to know that is to go back in time and measure the rocks then. Of course you have to conclude that those dates existed in the first place or you might find out Demon is correct about the origin of reality :} .

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in

Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 - January 1976 - p. 54)





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:26 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

>>Personnally I don't see what you mean by more easily coming to this conclusion. It seems to me you are using the same circularity the evolutionist do. If one did not have an opinion of how old the earth is the conclusion you come to would never be reached. The Theistic evolutionist and people like High Ross teach what you are saying about the Hebrew word day . I know quite a few orthodox Jews and my best friend is a Messianic Jew. They all read Hebrew and say that the passage means a literal 24 hour day and although many Jews do not necessarily believe it is true allmost all of them say that was what the author meant.<

You say that you would never come to the conclusion of long days if you didn't have an opinion on the age of the earth.  However, many ancient scholars believed that the creation account referred to days longer than 24 hours.  A few ancient Christian scholars who believed in long days are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, and Ambrose.  I would show you their writings where they show their beliefs, but unfortunately I can't find them on the internet.  


>>If you compare it's use throughout the Bible it means 24 hour day in more than 300 places and other than that in less than 10 if I remember right.<<

That's an interesting statistic, but it really doesn't mean anything.  Obviously “day” in the bible is going to more often mean a 24 hour or 12 hour period.  When  referring to relatively short periods of time such as in the genealogies they could use years, so they would very rarely require the word “day “ to refer to a very long period of time.  

>>The Masoretic text genologies make this belief in very long ages impossible.<<

I don't believe so.  I have a book somewhere that gives a very strong argument for long creation days, and I was looking at it yesterday.  It is almost impossible to believe that the days in Genesis were all 24 hour days just by looking at the text.  Read Genesis 1 and 2 and look what happened  just on the 6th day.  First God created Adam, then he planted a garden in Eden,  then Adam worked and cared for the garden of Eden.  After that, Adam carried out God's assignment to name all the animals on the earth-thousands of kinds, and millions of species.  In so doing so, Adam discovered that there was no suitable animal to be his helper. Then God put Adam into a deep sleep and performed an operation on him to create Eve.  When Adam wakes up, he says “now at length”, the Hebrew equivalent to “at last”.  That doesn't sound like the comment of a man who has existed for less than24 hours.  

To claim this all happened in 24 hours is sort of stretching it to say the least.  

Another thing:  Unlike the  other six days, the seventh day is not closed out by “there was morning and evening, the 7th day” as there is in every other day.  I believe that this indicates that we are at this moment in the 7th day of rest.  God's work has been finished since creation, and he has been resting since then.  Look at Hebrews 4:

3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
   "So I declared on oath in my anger,
   'They shall never enter my rest.' "[b] And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."[c] 5And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
    6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
   "Today, if you hear his voice,
   do not harden your hearts."[d] 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.



>>Allthough you can argue that it does not really matter it does. For instance if you use the same reasoning then the Sabbath could be a million years. The Bible is true or it is not.<<

Well, that's sort of an unfair statement.  The sabbath day and the week is a representation and reminder of God's creation, not the other way round.  As well as there being a sabbath day in the Jewish calendar, there is a sabbath year as well.  (Leviticus 25)  These are just two different representations of God's creation.  

Another example: The fact that the Feast of Tabernacles celebration continues for eight days does not mean that Moses wandered in the wilderness for eight days.  The celebration is simply a representation of a previous event.  




>>One of the arguments I hear from Ross that really bothers me is the thousand years in 2nd Peter 3. That is talking about the return of Christ and means that God is outside of time. He ignores the rest of the verse that talks about the willful ignorance of those that deny the flood in the latter days.
2Pe 3:3  Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:<<

I've never read anything where Ross or anyone else uses this argument, but I'll take your word on it.  However, I know that Ross doesn't deny the flood.  He simply states that the Hebrew word “world”  used with Noah's flood can also mean “land” or country”.  I remember  reading a more thorough explanation a couple of years ago.  

 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 2:35 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 2:35 PM on June 3, 2005 :
You say that you would never come to the conclusion of long days if you didn't have an opinion on the age of the earth.  However, many ancient scholars believed that the creation account referred to days longer than 24 hours.  A few ancient Christian scholars who believed in long days are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, and Ambrose.  I would show you their writings where they show their beliefs, but unfortunately I can't find them on the internet.  

You are proving my point for me Captain. You are stating why you have a preconceived notion of what the Bible says and that you logic is circular.
Again there is no way on Earth you would reach this conclusion based on the text itself.
Neither did any of the people you mentioned.



That's an interesting statistic, but it really doesn't mean anything.  Obviously “day” in the bible is going to more often mean a 24 hour or 12 hour period.  When  referring to relatively short periods of time such as in the genealogies they could use years, so they would very rarely require the word “day “ to refer to a very long period of time.  

Again you are reasoning in a circle. Context is not an "interesting " statistic." Break a leg" can mean 2 very different things.
[quoe]
I don't believe so.  I have a book somewhere that gives a very strong argument for long creation days, and I was looking at it yesterday.  It is almost impossible to believe that the days in Genesis were all 24 hour days just by looking at the text.  Read Genesis 1 and 2 and look what happened  just on the 6th day.  First God created Adam, then he planted a garden in Eden,  then Adam worked and cared for the garden of Eden.  After that, Adam carried out God's assignment to name all the animals on the earth-thousands of kinds, and millions of species.  In so doing so, Adam discovered that there was no suitable animal to be his helper. Then God put Adam into a deep sleep and performed an operation on him to create Eve.  When Adam wakes up, he says “now at length”, the Hebrew equivalent to “at last”.  That doesn't sound like the comment of a man who has existed for less than24 hours.  
I would like to know why you want to believe this so .
Without long ages atheistic evolution is impossible. Like I said I know quite a few Jews and none of them would agree with you. If death occured before sin the Bible is a pack of lies.
This is the goal of the atheist to get people to believe that. You are not arguing on the basis of logic or evidence but a desire to make the Bible fit atheistic timescales.
The Masoretic Text is very accurate . If evolution was true it would be off by a factor of
750,000 to one. Either you belive the Bible or you don't .

To claim this all happened in 24 hours is sort of stretching it to say the least.  

So as the atheist you believe in a weak , limited god? Then you should toss your Bible in the nearest trash can, or better yet give it to someone who might benefit from it.

Another thing:  Unlike the  other six days, the seventh day is not closed out by “there was morning and evening, the 7th day” as there is in every other day.  I believe that this indicates that we are at this moment in the 7th day of rest.  God's work has been finished since creation, and he has been resting since then.  Look at Hebrews 4:
Been there done that.


The notion of ‘rest’ is first mentioned in Hebrews 3:11, which is part of a quotation from Psalm 95:7–11, regarding the unbelief of the Israelites after they fled Egypt (3:18). God punished them by not allowing any adult over 20 (apart from Caleb and Joshua) to enter His ‘rest’ (Numbers 14:28–35), which was the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land.

In Hebrews 4:1, the author states that the promise of entering God’s rest still stands. However, verses 2–3a make it clear that he is now talking about entering the Kingdom of God, rather than possessing the land. Because of this, the ‘Promised Land’ is set up as a type of the kingdom, and both may be referred to as ‘God’s rest.’

God’s rest and Genesis 2:2
In Hebrews 4:4, the author quotes Genesis 2:2 to point out that the invitation to enter God’s ‘rest’ has not just been there since the time of the Exodus, but has actually been there ever since the creation of the world.

The Greek word translated ‘rested’ is κατέπαυσεν (katepausen), an aorist active indicative verb—the same word used in the Septuagint’s3 (LXX) translation of Genesis 2:2 to render the Hebrew וַיּשׁבּת (wayyishbot), a waw-consecutive imperfect.4 It is important to note that the primary sense of katepausen is that of ceasing from labour, and coming to a state of rest. The two most respected Greek lexicons give the definitions ‘(cause to) stop, bring to an end,’5 ‘to cease one’s work or activity, resulting in a period of rest.’6 The Hebrew wayyishbot also has a similar meaning: ‘cease, desist, rest’7 or ‘cease, stop … stop working.’8 Indeed, the exact same form of this verb is translated as ‘stopped’ in Joshua 5:12 and Job 32:1. Note also, the prepositional phrase ‘from all his work.’ God did not simply ‘stop’ or ‘rest,’ He stopped/rested from all His work.


Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
   "enter my rest."
    


Well, that's sort of an unfair statement.  The sabbath day and the week is a representation and reminder of God's creation, not the other way round.  As well as there being a sabbath day in the Jewish calendar, there is a sabbath year as well.  (Leviticus 25)  These are just two different representations of God's creation.  
And your point is?

Another example: The fact that the Feast of Tabernacles celebration continues for eight days does not mean that Moses wandered in the wilderness for eight days.  The celebration is simply a representation of a previous event.  
And your point is?

I've never read anything where Ross or anyone else uses this argument, but I'll take your word on it.  However, I know that Ross doesn't deny the flood.  He simply states that the Hebrew word “world”  used with Noah's flood can also mean “land” or country”.  I remember  reading a more thorough explanation a couple of years ago.  


He denies a global flood! You should do some research . He rewrites the Bible to suit the god he created . I personally believe he is damned for leading people astray.
If you want to continue this start a new thread this is way off the subject of circular reasoning as with dating techniques.

Some of Ross's quotes:
But here are some reasons why, physical reasons why, the flood cannot be global. Number one is the limited extent of sin. Given that human beings had not yet civilized and inhabited Antarctica, there’d be no need for God to flood Antarctica because there’d be no sin there in Antarctica.

‘There’d be no need for God to kill off all the penguins because those penguins had no contact with reprobate humanity. And in that case, I don’t think Noah took any penguins on board the ark. … Only bird and mammal species, according to the Levitical Law, can be impacted by sin.’ (Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series, March, 1997)

Comment: Read Genesis 6:19-20; The Bible clearly states here that all kinds of land animals—including penguins—were on the ark. By the way, most penguins live in other parts of the world, including the Galapagos Islands near the Equator!


It only works in a cosmos of a hundred-billion trillion stars that’s precisely sixteen-billion-years old. This is the narrow window of time in which life is possible.

‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’ (Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996).

Also: ‘Life is only possible when the universe is between 12 and 17 billion years.’ (Toocoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997)


Not everyone has been exposed to the sixty-six books of the Bible, but everyone on planet Earth has been exposed to the sixty-seventh book - the book that God has written upon the heavens for everyone to read.

‘And the Bible tells us it’s impossible for God to lie, so the record of nature must be just as perfect, and reliable and truthful as the sixty-six books of the Bible that is part of the Word of God … And so when astronomers tell us [Ross uses the example of scientists attempting to measure distances in space and goes on to say that] it’s part of the truth that God has revealed to us. It actually encompasses part of the Word of God.’ (Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series March, 1997).

‘Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or ‘hominids.’ These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls.

‘However, they were different from us. They did not worship God or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.’ (Reasons To Believe Web Site, updated July 8, 1997)

We’re also told in Revelation 6:9 that Christians who died ahead of us are watching what we’re doing. It’s like they go to heaven and they’re given the equivalent of some kind of TV monitor with a bunch of channels that they can select and they can watch.’ (Focus on the Family, broadcast August 8, 1997)

Rev 6:9  And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Ross is a wacko.







(Edited by peddler8111 6/3/2005 at 4:36 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 3:24 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 2:26 PM on June 3, 2005 :
The only way to know that is to go back in time and measure the rocks then.


No, you can calculate the diffusion rates based on the what material you are interested in and then measure it in the laboratory.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:10 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:10 PM on June 3, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 2:26 PM on June 3, 2005 :
The only way to know that is to go back in time and measure the rocks then.


No, you can calculate the diffusion rates based on the what material you are interested in and then measure it in the laboratory.




It s circular logic.
Regardless if your method of calculating diffusion rates is correct you don't know if anything changed the sample since creation.
The only way to check it is to compare it against the other methods that compare it against the fossils that were dated by 19th century Naturalist who basically made it up from thin air.

Without the evolutionary date all radiometric dating is impossible.

That is the bottom line. Why else would you choose one method over another ,other than c-14 etc, in some cases, than another to start with?
Because by looking at the fossil or artifact you know what age to expect it to be and pick a method that will give those type of dates.

Evolution theory itself is circular reasoning. It is a "fact" that there is no creator god and therefore animals evolved from chemicals that created themselves.

If an animal goes extinct it must have turned into something else. How do we know? Because evolution is a fact.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 5:36 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

>>You are proving my point for me Captain. You are stating why you have a preconceived notion of what the Bible says and that you logic is circular.
Again there is no way on Earth you would reach this conclusion based on the text itself.
Neither did any of the people you mentioned.<<

I don't believe I' stated that, so I'm not quite sure where you're coming from.  Are you saying that all of the ancient biblical scholars and historians that believed that the days in Genesis were longer than 24 hours had a preconceived notion about how old the universe was?  Or are you saying all of them are crazy?  Or are you saying that none of them actually believed this?  I can assure you on this last point that they did believe it.  


>>Again you are reasoning in a circle. Context is not an "interesting " statistic." Break a leg" can mean 2 very different things.<<

I'm sorry, but I didn't know you were talking about context.  The statement I was responding to was this: >>If you compare it's use throughout the Bible it means 24 hour day in more than 300 places and other than that in less than 10 if I remember right.<<

>>I would like to know why you want to believe this so .
Without long ages atheistic evolution is impossible. Like I said I know quite a few Jews and none of them would agree with you. If death occured before sin the Bible is a pack of lies.<<
Hmm...where does the Bible state that there was no death before Adam's fall?  I've read different theological views on this, and have always found the one claiming there to be no animal death before the fall to be weak.  

Here's the #1 bible passage that most theologians base that premise on:  

Genesis2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

As we know that Adam did not die the day he ate from the tree, I see only two options:  Either “death” refers to spiritual death, not physical, or “day” here refers to a long period of time or “age”.  Unless there is a third option, I believe that this passage  provides at least indirect support for long creation days and/or death before Adam's fall.  



>>This is the goal of the atheist to get people to believe that. You are not arguing on the basis of logic or evidence but a desire to make the Bible fit atheistic timescales.
The Masoretic Text is very accurate . If evolution was true it would be off by a factor of
750,000 to one. Either you belive the Bible or you don't .<<

You have said this several times, “The Masoretic Text is very accurate”.  However, I have explained the reasoning behind my belief in an old earth.  I don't believe the texts ever state explicitely that the earth is 6-7 thousand years old, as I think I remember reading you believe.  


>>So as the atheist you believe in a weak , limited god? Then you should toss your Bible in the nearest trash can, or better yet give it to someone who might benefit from it.<<  

I was referring not to God, but to Adam's ability to perform numerous time-taking tasks in less than a 24 hour period.  If you are proposing that God gave Adam superpowers to perform these tasks, this dialogue is sort of pointless.  Everytime there I propse a point that doesn't necessarily agree with your theological viewpoint, you can simply reply with “so you believe in a weak, limited god” and win the argument.  Of course, God could have done as you say, but when you try to win a debate using a theological argument that is completely unsupported by the bible, it makes this dialogue pointless, as I said.  



>>Been there done that.


The notion of ‘rest’ is first mentioned in Hebrews 3:11, which is part of a quotation from Psalm 95:7–11, regarding the unbelief of the Israelites after they fled Egypt (3:18). God punished them by not allowing any adult over 20 (apart from Caleb and Joshua) to enter His ‘rest’ (Numbers 14:28–35), which was the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land.

In Hebrews 4:1, the author states that the promise of entering God’s rest still stands. However, verses 2–3a make it clear that he is now talking about entering the Kingdom of God, rather than possessing the land. Because of this, the ‘Promised Land’ is set up as a type of the kingdom, and both may be referred to as ‘God’s rest.’

God’s rest and Genesis 2:2
In Hebrews 4:4, the author quotes Genesis 2:2 to point out that the invitation to enter God’s ‘rest’ has not just been there since the time of the Exodus, but has actually been there ever since the creation of the world.

The Greek word translated ‘rested’ is κατέπαυσεν (katepausen), an aorist active indicative verb—the same word used in the Septuagint’s3 (LXX) translation of Genesis 2:2 to render the Hebrew וַיּשׁבּת (wayyishbot), a waw-consecutive imperfect.4 It is important to note that the primary sense of katepausen is that of ceasing from labour, and coming to a state of rest. The two most respected Greek lexicons give the definitions ‘(cause to) stop, bring to an end,’5 ‘to cease one’s work or activity, resulting in a period of rest.’6 The Hebrew wayyishbot also has a similar meaning: ‘cease, desist, rest’7 or ‘cease, stop … stop working.’8 Indeed, the exact same form of this verb is translated as ‘stopped’ in Joshua 5:12 and Job 32:1. Note also, the prepositional phrase ‘from all his work.’ God did not simply ‘stop’ or ‘rest,’ He stopped/rested from all His work.


Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"enter my rest."<<

Very good, however, the only verse I was really referring to is this: "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

>>And your point is?<<

My point is, as you were relating the length of the creation days to the length of the sabbath, I was saying that the length of a memorial holiday or tradition does not necessarily define the length of the event they represent.  I believe that was your point.  

>>He denies a global flood! You should do some research . He rewrites the Bible to suit the god he created . I personally believe he is damned for leading people astray.<<

On the question of a global flood, I believe I have already stated what

>>If you want to continue this start a new thread this is way off the subject of circular reasoning as with dating techniques.<<

No, I don't have time to have a big debate about this.  If it was the summer, I might enjoy it, but I have too much studying to do at the moment.  

In response to your Hugh Ross quotes, I have little knowledge of him.  However, if those quotes have been collected to make him seem ridiculous, I must say they don't succeed very well.  Except for the last one, which appears to be the result of a brainfreeze they are all valid beliefs.  If you must make him out to be a “wacko”, that's fine, I suppose, although it lowers the level of discussion.  I'm not going to collect quotes from people who share your oppinion to try to ridicule your oppinion-because that doesn't really help anything.  
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 7:56 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 7:56 PM on June 3, 2005 :
I don't believe I' stated that, so I'm not quite sure where you're coming from.  Are you saying that all of the ancient biblical scholars and historians that believed that the days in Genesis were longer than 24 hours had a preconceived notion about how old the universe was?  Or are you saying all of them are crazy?  Or are you saying that none of them actually believed this?  I can assure you on this last point that they did believe it.  


I asked you to start a new post .
I am saying they has a preconception just as you do.

I'm sorry, but I didn't know you were talking about context.  The statement I was responding to was this: >>If you compare it's use throughout the Bible it means 24 hour day in more than 300 places and other than that in less than 10 if I remember right.<<

Ok maybe I should have phrased it differently. I think it is comp;etely out of context to come to your assertion. It almost always means 24 hours .

Hmm...where does the Bible state that there was no death before Adam's fall?  I've read different theological views on this, and have always found the one claiming there to be no animal death before the fall to be weak.  

Are you from Answers in Creation? Death is not "very good" .

Here's the #1 bible passage that most theologians base that premise on:  

Genesis2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

As we know that Adam did not die the day he ate from the tree, I see only two options:  Either “death” refers to spiritual death, not physical, or “day” here refers to a long period of time or “age”.  Unless there is a third option, I believe that this passage  provides at least indirect support for long creation days and/or death before Adam's fall.  

Before the fall he would have lived forever. The long ages , gap nonsense started the same time the long ages evolution nonsense did.
Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

If you want to believe death and suffering is very good suit yourself.

You have said this several times, “The Masoretic Text is very accurate”.  However, I have explained the reasoning behind my belief in an old earth.  I don't believe the texts ever state explicitely that the earth is 6-7 thousand years old, as I think I remember reading you believe.  
No , you have to count the generations like the good bishop did.
If you can get billions of years out of it then why believe any of the text? 750,000 to one is absurd.


I was referring not to God, but to Adam's ability to perform numerous time-taking tasks in less than a 24 hour period.  If you are proposing that God gave Adam superpowers to perform these tasks, this dialogue is sort of pointless.  Everytime there I propse a point that doesn't necessarily agree with your theological viewpoint, you can simply reply with “so you believe in a weak, limited god” and win the argument.  Of course, God could have done as you say, but when you try to win a debate using a theological argument that is completely unsupported by the bible, it makes this dialogue pointless, as I said.  

I should have seen that one coming. I could explain it but your mind is made up anyway.
My God was able to leave a book on how he did it.He brought the animals to Adam. We must assume one of 2 things. The Bible is true ot it is not.
If it is the word of Almighty God then it is true.
I believe this therefore Adam named all the animals.
It makes sense that there were far fewer different animals than there are today. There are models that end up with far less than 200 birds.
It is all speculation. I have faith that it happened . How it happened is speculation.
I asume the Bible is true you asume man's science is true.


My point is, as you were relating the length of the creation days to the length of the sabbath, I was saying that the length of a memorial holiday or tradition does not necessarily define the length of the event they represent.  I believe that was your point.  

I believe this is pointless.



In response to your Hugh Ross quotes, I have little knowledge of him.  However, if those quotes have been collected to make him seem ridiculous, I must say they don't succeed very well.  Except for the last one, which appears to be the result of a brainfreeze they are all valid beliefs.  If you must make him out to be a “wacko”, that's fine, I suppose, although it lowers the level of discussion.  I'm not going to collect quotes from people who share your oppinion to try to ridicule your oppinion-because that doesn't really help anything.  

Hugh Ross is a brilliant guy but he is a worshipper of false gods. His reference to Rev 6'9 I believe was made up on the spot. There is nothing in the Bible remotely close to that .
If you believe that the Bible saying that God puts His Word above his name is just a saying why believe Jesus died for us?
If you agree with Ross that the Bible is made to be changed to suit I don't know what to say.
Of all the versus to butcher why John 3:16 ?



It only works in a cosmos of a hundred-billion trillion stars that’s precisely sixteen-billion-years old. This is the narrow window of time in which life is possible.

‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’ (Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996).

You must understand that I believe the Bible is the Word of God. If you agree this is a valid interpretation then you must not.
I don't like the abuse it gets from the evolutionist. I find it infinitley more offensive coming from you.
It really is hard for me to accept you consider this butchery of God's Word by Ross valid.
Do you think his version of John 3:16 is what the author meant? Is this your view of proper context?








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:49 AM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 5:36 PM on June 3, 2005 :

It s circular logic.
Regardless if your method of calculating diffusion rates is correct you don't know if anything changed the sample since creation.
The only way to check it is to compare it against the other methods that compare it against the fossils that were dated by 19th century Naturalist who basically made it up from thin air.


No, we're talking about measuring a diffusion rate in the laboratory.  You agree that we can make a measurement in a laboratory don't you?

What would be impossible about measuring a diffusion rate?






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:51 AM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:51 AM on June 4, 2005 :

No, we're talking about measuring a diffusion rate in the laboratory.  You agree that we can make a measurement in a laboratory don't you?

What would be impossible about measuring a diffusion rate?


What use would that be if the presence of uranium u-238 at the beginning or if it changed since the beginning?
One problem is that certain constants involved in this method are not known or are hard to estimate, so they are calibrated based on the "known" ages of other rocks. If these other "known" ages are in error, then fission track dates are in error by the same amount

There is no escaping the fact that none of these methods could exist without the materialist dating of the column.

It is meaningless without them, it is worthless with them as they were contrived .










-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:20 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:20 PM on June 4, 2005 :
What use would that be if the presence of uranium u-238 at the beginning or if it changed since the beginning?


That's what you are measuring in the lab, bounding how much something can change.

Why are you afraid to find out?  What is your fear?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:57 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:57 PM on June 4, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 1:20 PM on June 4, 2005 :
What use would that be if the presence of uranium u-238 at the beginning or if it changed since the beginning?


That's what you are measuring in the lab, bounding how much something can change.

Why are you afraid to find out?  What is your fear?


That I am talking to the wall and it is responding.
No amount of testing will mean anything unless you know the original level of the paticular isotope. This is only possible by building a time machine and taking a ride through history. This is of course as impossible.
The way it is done,and you have not tried to dispute,is by comparing the results with "known" dates of similar artifacts .
Which brings us full-circle [pun intended] back to the original problem.

There are numerous problems with accuracy but they are really irrelevent as that would beg the question.
How would you know there were problems with acuracy?
The answer? Check the results against "known" dates.

Without the uniformitarian assumptions of the age of fossils radiometric dating would not be possible. Beyond recorded history anyway.

Which begs the question. Why was history not recorded longer in the first place? The most ancient languages are  in most cases more complex than present day ones. Why aren't there any "evolving" languages in ancient times?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:09 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can someone please tell me why this narrowing of the thread happens regularly.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 8:06 PM on June 5, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 8:06 PM on June 5, 2005 :
Can someone please tell me why this narrowing of the thread happens regularly.

I would like to know that myself.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:05 PM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no offense peddler but I think you have a part in this phenomina. It seems that your quoting method gradually thins out the thread. Where does that gray stuff next to your qoutes com from?


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:35 PM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 9:35 PM on June 5, 2005 :
no offense peddler but I think you have a part in this phenomina. It seems that your quoting method gradually thins out the thread. Where does that gray stuff next to your qoutes com from?


If peddler would go back and fix the quote tags that are unbalanced it would fix the problem.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:56 AM on June 6, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 11:09 PM on June 4, 2005 :
That I am talking to the wall and it is responding.
No amount of testing will mean anything unless you know the original level of the paticular isotope.


WRONG  there is nothing that prevents you from going into a lab and measuring how fast something would diffuse from a rock into a surrounding medium.   And there is plenty of theoretical background to help you estimate what that rate should be.  

Are you trying to tell us it is impossible to measure anything?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:02 AM on June 6, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:02 AM on June 6, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 11:09 PM on June 4, 2005 :

WRONG  there is nothing that prevents you from going into a lab and measuring how fast something would diffuse from a rock into a surrounding medium.   And there is plenty of theoretical background to help you estimate what that rate should be.  

Are you trying to tell us it is impossible to measure anything?

Are you saying radiometric dating is a theory? I have always see it presented as fact by evolutionist.
One can measure lots of things.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:44 PM on June 6, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 10:44 PM on June 6, 2005 :
Are you saying radiometric dating is a theory? I have always see it presented as fact by evolutionist.
One can measure lots of things.


Radiometric dating is a procedure.  So is measuring the pH of a swimming pool.  Both rely on theory and proper technique to get accurate results.

Why are you so afraid to admit that a diffusion rate can be measured?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:00 PM on June 6, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:00 PM on June 6, 2005 :

Radiometric dating is a procedure.  So is measuring the pH of a swimming pool.  Both rely on theory and proper technique to get accurate results.

Why are you so afraid to admit that a diffusion rate can be measured?




I fear nothing of the sort. Why do you fear the truth?
Any measurement is irrelevant with out a way to cross check the answer.
What difference does it make what the diffusion rate if if you don't know the original content of U-238 or the past forces affecting the rock?
Are you willing to say this method stands on it's own and it is not true that the fossil date is used to cross check?
Other wise you are beating a dead horse.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:50 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you willing to say this method stands on it's own and it is not true that the fossil date is used to cross check?
Other wise you are beating a dead horse.


Yes we can safely say radiometric dating techniques stand on their own and do not rely on any corroborating evidence from fossils.
How can I say this with any certainty?  Because lunar rock samples have been dated, and there are no fossils on the moon to cross check with.  So yeah, radiometric dating produces dates completely independent of the fossil record.  From here:
MoonRocks
"Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor."

And from here a zircon sample from australia that is 4.4 billion years old:
OldRock
"MADISON, Wis. - A tiny speck of zircon crystal that is barely visible to the eye is believed to be the oldest known piece of Earth at about 4.4 billion years old."

Dates obtained by radiometric techniques are completely independent of any fossil data, as show by these 2 examples that were dated and no fossils exist to cross check them with.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:08 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:08 PM on June 7, 2005 :


Yes we can safely say radiometric dating techniques stand on their own and do not rely on any corroborating evidence from fossils.
How can I say this with any certainty?  Because lunar rock samples have been dated, and there are no fossils on the moon to cross check with.  So yeah, radiometric dating produces dates completely independent of the fossil record.  From here:
MoonRocks
"Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor."
That is without a doubt the worst argument one could think of.
As there is no way to even imagine the original quantity of any certain isotope in a m0on rock the method must be checked to checks made on fossils.
You have somehome managed to invent circular circular reasoning but I am not sure how you did it.
As I said before , you are special.The same exact rocks from the same exact spot on the moon tested different ages with different methods. As much as 1000 times different. None of them were 4.5 ba at the time. That would have been impossible as the earth was not 4.5 ba then. The earth will be 10 ba within ten years I predict. On average the age of the earth doubles every 25 years or so and radiometric dating is adjusted accordingly.
I am sure you see no problem with that as truth is relative to you.

This I am sure is over your head but with all the data available on the closese body to the earth we have science has no clue where it came from.

http://www.icr.org/bible/apollo.htm


And from here a zircon sample from australia that is 4.4 billion years old:
OldRock
"MADISON, Wis. - A tiny speck of zircon crystal that is barely visible to the eye is believed to be the oldest known piece of Earth at about 4.4 billion years old."
You are not adressing the facts . There is no way to know the original quantity of the isotope or what happened to it over time without a cross check. Scientist do use the fossil dates as the means of calibration. There is no other possible way to do it.
If there is describe it instead of changing the subject.

Dates obtained by radiometric techniques are completely independent of any fossil data, as show by these 2 examples that were dated and no fossils exist to cross check them with.

That is really a senseless comment. It is true that no fossils exist to cross check but it is a tautalogy.
There has to be a crosscheck of the method . The crosscheck is the fossils.
You really need to think for yourself. How could you know the original isotope content of the rocks if as you say it is an independant method?
What would you base it on ? Withchcraft, Demonology :} , or just pure imagination?

You see to think there is a magic box that registers dates when you put a rock in it.
It does, not work that way, all you have is a reading of the presense of an isotope. By itself it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
Without the fossil "evolutionary" date it would be useless.
The theory of evolution proves the theory of evolution!
Long ago and far far away on the moon!








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:13 AM on June 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is without a doubt the worst argument one could think of.

What's wrong with it?  You claim radiometric dates are ONLY verified by fossils.  You said:
"Are you willing to say this method stands on it's own and it is not true that the fossil date is used to cross check?"

Samples found on the moon have no fossils to cross check them against.  A 4.4 billion year old sample has no fossils to cross check it agains.  Where's the problem?  why is this the worst arguement?  They can't be cross checked with fossils becasue THERE ARE NO FOSSILS TO CROSS CHECK THEM AGAINS!

As there is no way to even imagine the original quantity of any certain isotope in a m0on rock the method must be checked to checks made on fossils.

This is gibberish!  Of course we can know the original amount of the parent substance.  Where are you getting your incorrect information?!?!  From here:
ChristianRadiodating
"10. To date a rock one must know the original amount of the parent element. But there is no way to measure how much parent element was originally there.

It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life.

You have somehome managed to invent circular circular reasoning but I am not sure how you did it.

No circular reasoning here.  You use this phrase a lot and it's becoming obvious you don't understand what circular reasoning is!  Why don't you explain to all of us how this qualifies as circular reasoning...

The same exact rocks from the same exact spot on the moon tested different ages with different methods. As much as 1000 times different. None of them were 4.5 ba at the time.

once again you make an inaccurate statement with nothing to back it up.  Here's the real data, from here:
Moonrocks
Oldest Lunar Rocks
Mission Technique Age (in billions of years)
Apollo 17  Rb-Sr isochron     4.55 +- 0.1
Apollo 17  Rb-Sr isochron     4.60 +- 0.1
Apollo 17  Rb-Sr isochron     4.49
Apollo 17  Rb-Sr isochron     4.43 +- 0.05
Apollo 17  Sm-Nd isochron   4.23 +- 0.05
Apollo 17  Sm-Nd isochron   4.34 +- 0.05
Apollo 16  40Ar/39Ar            4.47
Apollo 16  40Ar/39Ar            4.42

And also, from the same site:

The following, although not among the oldest lunar rocks, show the consistency of ages found for the same sample (note the sample numbers) as determined by different dating techniques.

Description  Sample #   Technique            Age
Apollo 14     14053         Rb-Sr isochron    3.96
Apollo 14     14053         40Ar/39Ar           3.95
Apollo 17     75055         Rb-Sr isochron    3.83
Apollo 17     75055         40Ar/39Ar           3.76
Luna 16       B-1              40Ar/39Ar           3.42
Luna 16       B-1              Rb-Sr isochron    3.45
Apollo 15     15555          Rb-Sr isochron    3.32
Apollo 15     15555          40Ar/39Ar           3.31
Apollo 12     12051          40Ar/39Ar           3.27
Apollo 12     12051          Rb-Sr isochron    3.26
Apollo 12     12051          40Ar/39Ar           3.24
Apollo 12     12051          Rb-Sr isochron    3.16

And here's a really good one from the same site, sorry I can't get it to fit here, but here's the opening statement, you'll have to look at the chart yourself:

"Finally, note this stunning example from a single moon rock sample (from Age of the Earth, Dalrymple, 1991 - a "must read" for anyone who wants the true story on radiometric dating)"

So far, all your statements about radiometric dating have been false.  The same exact rocks gave the same date ranges  they weren't 1000's of times different.  Once again, you claim something that is just not true and you don't even try to back it up, believe me you've been wrong so many times, no one is taking your word on anything!

None of them were 4.5 ba at the time.

Yes they were, look at the real data!

That would have been impossible as the earth was not 4.5 ba then.

Why not?!?!  Back up your statement!

The earth will be 10 ba within ten years I predict. On average the age of the earth doubles every 25 years or so and radiometric dating is adjusted accordingly.

Ha ha, your ignorance knows no bounds!  Radiometric dates have only been refined since they were first used.  And why shouldn't science revise it's conclusions when new data and new equipment is used?  You seem to think this is a problem when in truth it's sciences greatest advantage.  Nothing is taken as dogma, as with creatinism.  Your stuck with a 3000 year old myth and despite the fact that it's been proven wrong, you HAVE to believe it...Now that's stupid!

I am sure you see no problem with that as truth is relative to you.

Our understanding is always changing, that's why we use science to study the universe, not dogmatic myths.  And no matter what evidence is provided, no matter how well a theory is validated, because you have the "TRUTH", you must remain ignorant.

This I am sure is over your head but with all the data available on the closese body to the earth we have science has no clue where it came from.

What are you talking about?!?  You can't really be this stupid, can you?  From here:
Moon
"Thus, the giant impact hypothesis continues to be the leading hypothesis on how the moon formed. Is it right? Can it be disproven by more careful research? Only time will tell, but so far it has stood up to 25 years of scrutiny. "

So no, it's not over my head, obviously over yours though.  Science does have more than a clue on the origin of the moon and it's supported by evidence also.  

You are not adressing the facts . There is no way to know the original quantity of the isotope or what happened to it over time without a cross check.

Not true, as I showed above the experts who actually do radiometric dating disagree with you and your sources.  We don't even have to know the original quantity of the isotope, just the ratio present now between parent and daughter elements.  From here:
USGS
"When igneous rocks crystallize, the newly formed minerals contain various amounts of chemical elements, some of which have radioactive isotopes. These isotopes decay within the rocks according to their half-life rates, and by selecting the appropriate minerals (those that contain potassium, for instance) and measuring the relative amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in them, the date at which the rock crystallized can be determined. Most of the large igneous rock masses of the world have been dated in this manner."

Scientist do use the fossil dates as the means of calibration. There is no other possible way to do it.

Wrong!  Show us where the experts say they must calibrate radiometric dates with fossils!  This is simply wrong.  I used the examples of moon rocks because there are no fossils on the moon, you haven't explained how these moon rocks were calibrated...
And of course there are other ways to calibrate radiometric dates.  Since each isotope decays at a different rate, if a sample is dated by 2 or more techniques, the only way the different isotopes would give the same dates is if those dates were correct.  After all, how could 2 or more radioactiv e isotopes both give the same wrong date?!?  Couldn't happen.  Radiometric dating techniques are used to verify each other, radiometric dates are verified by ice core samples, lake varve counts, dendochronology, coral reef formation, other techniques like thermolumenescience, Electron spin resonance
and cosmic ray exposure dating.  You claim that these dating methods don't match, but the experts that do the tests claim otherwise.
So where's your evidence to falsify them?

That is really a senseless comment. It is true that no fossils exist to cross check but it is a tautalogy.

No tautalogy!  We cross check the dates obtained by other, completely different radiometric dating techniques.   By dating a sample by 2 different radiometric techinques and getting the same date range, the accuracy of the date is established.  Why would 2 different isotopes give back the SAME wrong date?  It's just not possible and I would love to hear your explaination, since you always avoid making any explainations.

There has to be a crosscheck of the method . The crosscheck is the fossils.

No it's not, show were the experts claim this, show how moon rocks, found on the moon, a place with NO fossils, are cross checked against fossils?  Put up or shut up...

You really need to think for yourself. How could you know the original isotope content of the rocks if as you say it is an independant method?

Think for myself?!?!  This coming from a creationist zombie who can't do any research for themselves and continue to regurgitate the same disproven "evidence" that creationist websites continue to inflict on the general public every few years...I'd tell you to follow your own advise, but you're the one who can no longer think for themselve.

From here:
RadioChrist
"1. Radiometric dating is based on index fossils whose dates were assigned long before radioactivity was discovered.

This is not at all true, though it is implied by some young-Earth literature. Radiometric dating is based on the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes. These half-lives have been measured over the last 40-90 years. They are not calibrated by fossils."

Also from the same site:
"However, there is one complication. One cannot always assume that there were no daughter atoms to begin with. It turns out that there are some cases where one can make that assumption quite reliably. But in most cases the initial amount of the daughter product must be accurately determined. Most of the time one can use the different amounts of parent and daughter present in different minerals within the rock to tell how much daughter was originally present. Each dating mechanism deals with this problem in its own way. Some types of dating work better in some rocks; others are better in other rocks, depending on the rock composition and its age. Let's examine some of the different dating mechanisms now."

So we can know the original amount of parent element by measuring the ratio of parent to daugther elements in the sample.  Why is this a problem?  Be specific and be prepared to back up your statements...for a change...

What would you base it on ? Withchcraft, Demonology :} , or just pure imagination?


Like you base your vision of God on...
No, it's based on elemental chemistry and mathematics.  Again, where's the problem?

You see to think there is a magic box that registers dates when you put a rock in it.

Once again, you are wrong, I don't think that at all, unlike you, Iknow how radiometric dating works.

It does, not work that way, all you have is a reading of the presense of an isotope. By itself it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

But when you combine it with the ratio of parent to daugther elements, and the known rate of radioactive decay for that isotope, you get an incredibly accurate way to date samples.

Without the fossil "evolutionary" date it would be useless.

I already proved this wrong.

The theory of evolution proves the theory of evolution!

No, nuclear science proves evolution, astronomy proves evolution, biology proves evolution, geology proves evolution, genetics proves evolution.  And nothing disproves it.

Now you always weasel your way out of the important questions, so let's stay on track.
How are radiometric dates calibrated by fossils, especially moon rocks that have no fossils to calibrate them?
Explain why all the moon rock samples radiodated so far are so consistant with each other or give us evidence that they are not...
Explain the flaws in radiometric dating and then explain why all dating techniques agree.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:58 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 9:50 PM on June 7, 2005 :
I fear nothing of the sort. Why do you fear the truth?


Then admit that a diffusion rate can be accurately measured.  And just what truth am I fearing?


Any measurement is irrelevant with out a way to cross check the answer.

That's the beauty of it, all of these methods show a wonderful concordance.

What difference does it make what the diffusion rate if if you don't know the original content of U-238 or the past forces affecting the rock?


It's part of the evidence that make's us confident we can know these things.  Past forces on a rock leave telltale results.  Try reading a book on Petrology.

Are you willing to say this method stands on it's own and it is not true that the fossil date is used to cross check?


YES

Other wise you are beating a dead horse.


Beat -- Beat -- Beat

Do you claim infallibility?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:55 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

]Quote from Apoapsis at 11:55 AM on June 12, 2005 :

Then admit that a diffusion rate can be accurately measured.  And just what truth am I fearing?

There is no way to know if this means anything over long time periods without cross checking against fossil dates. It is circular reasoning.
Even geologist won't deny this. why do you?

That's the beauty of it, all of these methods show a wonderful concordance.
.
Wonderful? Coal that dates at less than 50ka ma with radio carbon dates 50ma with radiometric.
The exact same moon rocks dated from 2ma to 20ba . Different parts of the same animal date 10 of thousands of years apart.
How do we know those samples are "contaminated". Easy , any date that disagres with evolution theory comes from a "contaminated" sample.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using the only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." (J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 - January 1976 - p. 53)

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 - January 1976 - p. 54)


It's part of the evidence that make's us confident we can know these things.  Past forces on a rock leave telltale results.  Try reading a book on Petrology.
But how do you know what those forces were or how they affected the rock? We know for a fact that samples taken from lava flows in New Zealand , Hawaii , Mt. St. Helens and many many others test as hundreds of thousands to billions of years .
The oldest we KNOW is less than 200 years. These numbers have been known since the 60's and are repeatable and testable.

Are you willing to say this method stands on it's own and it is not true that the fossil date is used to cross check?


YES
A reference perhaps? A scientist stating that the fossil dates are not used?
Please be serious.

Beat -- Beat -- Beat

Do you claim infallibility?

No I am but a mortal man. On this issue I am merely stating a self-evident truth.









-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:41 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still waiting for peddler to explain how you calibrate dated moon rocks with fossils...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:29 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 2:41 PM on June 12, 2005 :
A reference perhaps? A scientist stating that the fossil dates are not used?
Please be serious.


No problem.  I am completely serious.

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.



page 23

Appendix: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods

There are a number of misconceptions that seem especially prevalent among Christians. Most of these topics are covered in the above discussion, but they are reviewed briefly here for clarity.

1. Radiometric dating is based on index fossils whose dates were assigned long before radioactivity was discovered.

This is not at all true, though it is implied by some young-Earth literature. Radiometric dating is based on the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes. These half-lives have been measured over the last 40-90 years. They are not calibrated by fossils.

(Edited by Apoapsis 6/13/2005 at 10:19 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:07 AM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:29 PM on June 12, 2005 :
Still waiting for peddler to explain how you calibrate dated moon rocks with fossils...


That questions shows your IQ. There are no fossils on the moon. So you check the dates to coincide with evolution theory and adjust them accordingly.
You make them up out of thin air!



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:07 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:07 PM on June 13, 2005 :
. . . So you check the dates to coincide with evolution theory and adjust them accordingly.
You make them up out of thin air!


No matter how comforting it might be for you to say this, it it false.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:16 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:07 AM on June 13, 2005 :


No problem.  I am completely serious.


I am impressed ! But it is not enough to find one scientist who agrees with you.
"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. — The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age."



The main "result" of this system, however, is merely the widespread acceptance of evolution. It is extremely inefficient in locating oil or other economically useful deposits. Perhaps, however, geologists feel that, since biologists had already proved evolution, they are justified in assuming it in their own work. But biologists in turn have simply assumed evolution to be true.
This is a fact . My Father was a geologist and he was very anti-evolution. He predicted many of the deposits in the Gulf refilling .
Evolution has nothing to do with geology.
Geology is a science.



Creationists have long insisted that the main evidence for evolution — the fossil record — involves a serious case of circular reasoning. That is, the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships. Thus the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution.
"These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order."





“In about 1830, Charles Lyell, Paul Deshayes, and Heinrich George Brann independently developed a biostratigraphic technique (geologic column) for dating Cenozoic deposits based on realive proportions of living and extinct species of fossil mollusks…Strangely, little effort has been made to test this assumption.  This failure leaves the method vulnerable to circularity.”

Stanley, Steven M., Warron O. Addicott, and Kiyotaka Chinzei, vol. 8 (September 1980), “Lyellian Curvers in Paleontology: Possibilities and Limitations,” Geology, p. 422
And, as far as "ordering of biological events beyond the local section is concerned,"

O'Rourke reminds us again that:

"Index fossils — are regarded as the features most reliable for accurate, long-distance correlations."



"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

"Material bodies are finite, and no rock unit is global in extent, yet stratigraphy aims at a global classification. The particulars have to be stretched into universals somehow. Here ordinary materialism leaves off building up a system of units recognized by physical properties, to follow dialectical materialism, which starts with time units and regards the material bodies as their incomplete representatives. This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1979, p. 49.

"The paleontologist's wheel of authority turned full circle when he put this process into reverse and used his fossils to determine tops and bottoms for himself. In the course of time he came to rule upon stratigraphic order, and gaps within it, on a worldwide basis."—*F.K. North, "the Geological Time Scale," in Royal Society of Canada Special Publication, 8:5 (1964). [The order of fossils is determined by the rock strata they are in, and the strata they are in are decided by their tops and bottoms—which are deduced by the fossils in them.]




"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 geologic ages are identified and dated by the fossils contained in the sedimentary rocks. The fossil record also provides the chief evidence for the theory of evolution, which in turn is the basic philosophy upon which the sequence of geologic ages has been erected. The evolution-fossil-geologic age system is thus a closed circle which comprises one interlocking package. Each goes with the other."—Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972), pp. 76-77.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?"—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" Bio-Science, November 1978, p. 714.


In another article, Dr. Ager, who is also Head of the Geology Department at Swansea University, notes the problem involved in trying to use minor differences in organisms (that is, what creationists would call horizontal changes, or variations) as time markers.

"We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation
"The theory of dialectic materialism postulates matter as the ultimate reality, not to be questioned.

— Evolution is more than a useful biologic concept: it is a natural law controlling the history of all phenomena."

Another geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."







(Edited by peddler8111 6/14/2005 at 08:16 AM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:36 PM on June 13, 2005 | 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.