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
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your quote mined plagarism from ICR Impact-48 means nothing.   Apparently all you can do is cut and paste without giving credit.

Quote mine project

Come back when you have an original thought.

Do you consider stealing a sin?


-------
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: 1:15 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 1:15 PM on June 13, 2005 :
Your quote mined plagarism from ICR Impact-48 means nothing.   Apparently all you can do is cut and paste without giving credit.

Quote mine project

Hmmm . Cut and paste is a sin. I will say it again Demon. You are special.
Are you in special ed?
An atheist who says that copying puplic documents is a sin. That is special!

Come back when you have an original thought.

Do you consider stealing a sin?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 4:58 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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!


Where's your evidence for this...Thought so, as usual you can't produce any evidence.  No, you are wrong again.  As seen in the site I posted the moon rocks were dated by different radiometric techniques that verified each other.  After all, how could dating different isotopes give us the SAME wrong date?!?!   So no, no one checks the dates of moon rocks against evolutionary theory, that's something you just pulled out of thin air because you have nothing to backup your assinine claims!  Come on, show us what scientists say they calibrate moon rocks against evolutionary derived dates...

I am impressed ! But it is not enough to find one scientist who agrees with you.

But this isn't one scientist agreeing with him, it's literally all scientists who conduct radiometric dating.  From here and another geologist:
Radiogeology
"The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough.  Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

   "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."

Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation).

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data.  Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others.  There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section.  Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences."

Dating with radiometric tecniques IS not circular.

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.

Why wouldn't it be feasable?!?!  This seems to be wrong since we can successfully date moon rocks that DON'T occur in the geologic column and we date meteors that have been found in the ice shelves of antartica.  So right there, with just these 2 examples we see that the above quote is wrong.

The main "result" of this system, however, is merely the widespread acceptance of evolution.

Geologists don't care about evolution.  The main "result" of radiometric dating is samples can now be dated with an absolute date instead of a relative date.   That it supports evolution is how sciemce works the strongest theories, like evolution, are supported by independent lines of evidence and multiple disciplines of science.

This is a fact . My Father was a biologist and he was very anti-evolution.

Wait a minute....your father was a biologist?
Didn't you in another post that he was a geologist?  From here:
Huh?!?!
"My Father was a brilliant geologist "

What are you going to pretend he was next???
And you never told us WHY your father was anti evolution, you could never present any evidence as to why evolution isn't science, you haven't been able to refute evolution at all.
So until you present your fathers evidence for being anti evolution, we must assume that he did so on a purely religious, not scientific basis and he was, like you, a creationist loon...

Creationists have long insisted that the main evidence for evolution — the fossil record — involves a serious case of circular reasoning.

And you have been shown why they (and you) are wrong, even though you INSIST that it's circular, you haven't been able to back up your assertion with ANY facts.  On the other hand, you have been shown inconravertable evidence that you are wrong.

O'Rourke reminds us again that:
"Index fossils — are regarded as the features most reliable for accurate, long-distance correlations."


And of course, O'Rourke is not only wrong, he's 30 years out of date.  his opinions, like yours, are worthless.

As a matter of fact all those quotes you post are wothless also, in science, the lastest data is the most accurate, the best verified, and every scientific organization in the world suuports an old earth, no world wide flood and evolution as the source of diversity on the planet.
From the ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA:
"The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in 1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and geologists, but also by chemists and physicists. From deductions based on abundant data, the theory has been developed to explain the changes that have taken place in living things over much of the Earth's history. In its modern form, it remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community."

From the  AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION:
"Evolution is a basic component of many aspects of anthropology (including physical anthropology, archeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics) and is a cornerstone of modern science, being central to biology, geology, and astronomy.
The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria. Evolution should be part of the pre-college curriculum; it is the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life."

From the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE:
" Therefore, the council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal action upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of the association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the council with regard to the theory of evolution.
1) The council of the association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of the evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution.
(2) The council of the association affirms that the evidences in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world, and that these evidences are increasing in number and importance very year.
(3) The council of the association also affirms that the theory of evolution is one of the most potent of the great influences for good that have thus far entered into human experience; it has promoted the progress of knowledge, it has fostered unprejudiced inquiry, and it has served as an invaluable aid in humanity's search for truth in many fields. "

From the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE:
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding."

From the  BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA:
"The Botanical Society of America has as its members professional scientists, scholars, and educators from across the United States and Canada, and from over 50 other countries. Most of us call ourselves botanists, plant biologists, or plant scientists, and members of our profession teach and learn about botanical organisms using well established principles and practices of science.
Evolution represents one of the broadest, most inclusive theories used in pursuit of and in teaching this knowledge, but it is by no means the only theory involved. Scientific theories are used in two ways: to explain what we know, and to pursue new knowledge. Evolution explains observations of shared characteristics (the result of common ancestry and descent with modification) and adaptations (the result of natural selection acting to maximize reproductive success), as well as explaining pollen:ovule ratios, weeds, deceptive pollination strategies, differences in sexual expression, dioecy, and a myriad of other biological phenomena. Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, “evolution is just a theory,” the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true."

I could go on and on, but the point is your misleading quotes are irrelevant, your out of date quotes don't change a thing, your quotes from other creationist nutjobs are meaningless!  You try to paint an inaccurate picture of what the modern world of science says.  And what it overwhelmingly says is that evolution is valid, evolution is the most important concept in biology.  Over 99% of the worlds biologists agree.  You with your misrepresentations, with your straw men arguements, with your ignorance of science and biology, have done nothing to disprove this, you've been unable to show one piece of evidence to refute eveolution or an old earth.
Live in your fairytale world, wallow in your stupidity and ancient myth, but your not fooling anyone...















 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:05 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 7:05 PM on June 13, 2005 :


Where's your evidence for this...Thought so, as usual you can't produce any evidence.  No, you are wrong again.  As seen in the site I posted the moon rocks were dated by different radiometric techniques that verified each other.  After all, how could dating different isotopes give us the SAME wrong date?!?!   So no, no one checks the dates of moon rocks against evolutionary theory, that's something you just pulled out of thin air because you have nothing to backup your assinine claims!  Come on, show us what scientists say they calibrate moon rocks against evolutionary derived dates...

Then how did they professor?
Here's the senario . You have some rocks from the moon. You measure them for say radiogenic argon .
Do you know how old they are?
No. You know the amount of radiogenic argon , that is all.
Can you compare that with the original quantity?
No. You have no way of knowing what that was.

If a little birdie told you what the original quantity was could you then produce a date?
No. Because you don't know if there was more than one heating -cooling event etc.

You are out of luck unless you have something to compare it with.
You don't , you lose .


But this isn't one scientist agreeing with him, it's literally all scientists who conduct radiometric dating.  From here and another geologist:

Buy a dictionary. If literally all scientist agree with him then Baumgardner agrees with him. You really are out to lunch.

Radiogeology
"The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough.  Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

   "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."

Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation).

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data.  Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others.  There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section.  Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences."

Dating with radiometric tecniques IS not circular.

Read what they are saying. They are saying some evolutionary scientist say what I am saying.
"Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others"
If it was not circular reasoning this would not be necessary! What strata did they use on the moon? You just are not bright enough to understand what you posted. I can't help that.


Why wouldn't it be feasable?!?!  This seems to be wrong since we can successfully date moon rocks that DON'T occur in the geologic column and we date meteors that have been found in the ice shelves of antartica.  So right there, with just these 2 examples we see that the above quote is wrong.
Sucessfully means producing the dates you expect. Without a cross check there is no date, only a measure of an isotope.
You must believe there is a magic box that you put rocks in and out pops a date.


Geologists don't care about evolution.  The main "result" of radiometric dating is samples can now be dated with an absolute date instead of a relative date.   That it supports evolution is how sciemce works the strongest theories, like evolution, are supported by independent lines of evidence and multiple disciplines of science.
This is circular reasoning. The theory supports the theory.The only absolute date is made with a calender.
{quote]

Wait a minute....your father was a biologist?
Didn't you in another post that he was a geologist?  From here:
Huh?!?!
"My Father was a brilliant geologist "

What are you going to pretend he was next???

And you call me a fraudulent quote miner? Why don't you print the rest of it. Obviously I was thinking one thing and typed another. Unless you think I believe that biologist find oil and gas or that I would forget my Father's life work.

He saw creation as a self evident truth and evolution as a fairy tale.
He spent his life studying oil and gas deposits.
At the present rate that oil and gas leaks from the earth it would have all done so in about 35ka .
That is science. To bad it goes against your religion.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 01:55 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look: Then how did they professor?
Here's the senario . You have some rocks from the moon. You measure them for say radiogenic argon .
Do you know how old they are?
No. You know the amount of radiogenic argon , that is all.
Can you compare that with the original quantity?
No. You have no way of knowing what that was.


See, you don't understand radiometric dating (however, call it isotopic dating, that is more correct).

Here's a scenario. 1-million years ago, there was a rock that contained a significant amount of potassium. Hypothetically, lets say that in this isotope of potassium is unstable, and takes 2-million years in order to stabilize into its daughter product, (hypothetically) argon. So 1 million years later, this rock is dated, and is discovered that in one half-life, 50% of the rock has stabilized into argon, and the other half is still the potassium isotope. The rate at which this hypothetical isotope of potassium disintegrates into the stabilized argon always stays the same. Always. That way, isotopic dating can be considered reliable.

You might inquire how we find out the disitegration rate (or decaying) of isotopes. It is mathematical. Some isotopes have decaying rates that are very long. Other ones very short, some only hundreds or decades long, so that it can be directly observed. Here is a site that accurately shows isotopic dating.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

This site, however, stills refers to it as radiometric, which is an older, and somewhat inaccurate, term. Isotopic dating is more accurate.

No circular reasoning involved. You were simply misinformed.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 09:57 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler,

Please edit your post to fix the tags.


-------
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: 10:12 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:12 AM on June 14, 2005 :
Peddler,

Please edit your post to fix the tags.



No .


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:10 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 09:57 AM on June 14, 2005 :
Look: Then how did they professor?
Here's the senario . You have some rocks from the moon. You measure them for say radiogenic argon .
Do you know how old they are?
No. You know the amount of radiogenic argon , that is all.
Can you compare that with the original quantity?
No. You have no way of knowing what that was.


See, you don't understand radiometric dating (however, call it isotopic dating, that is more correct).
Both are correct. I do understand it. Please don't presume that because i disagree I do not understand. That is arrogant.

Here's a scenario. 1-million years ago, there was a rock that contained a significant amount of potassium. Hypothetically, lets say that in this isotope of potassium is unstable, and takes 2-million years in order to stabilize into its daughter product, (hypothetically) argon. So 1 million years later, this rock is dated, and is discovered that in one half-life, 50% of the rock has stabilized into argon, and the other half is still the potassium isotope. The rate at which this hypothetical isotope of potassium disintegrates into the stabilized argon always stays the same. Always. That way, isotopic dating can be considered reliable.
It makes no difference what the 1/2 life is if you don't know the original quantity of the isotope or the forces that changed it over time.
It is hypothetical as you say. It is not science.

You might inquire how we find out the disitegration rate (or decaying) of isotopes. It is mathematical. Some isotopes have decaying rates that are very long. Other ones very short, some only hundreds or decades long, so that it can be directly observed. Here is a site that accurately shows isotopic dating.
b]
Please don't presume what I would ask. You contention that anyone who thinks radiometric dating is worthless does not understand it is arrogant. Measuring isotopes may have value but to be used for dating it requires information that cannot be known. [/b]

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

This site, however, stills refers to it as radiometric, which is an older, and somewhat inaccurate, term. Isotopic dating is more accurate.
I like it . Why is it inaccurate and why would you link me to a site that knows less than you do? According to you they don't even know the correct name of the process. [/b]


No circular reasoning involved. You were simply misinformed.
Be specific. You are just repeating what you are told. All geologist know it is circular reasoning , a few admit it.
Without the hypothetical geologic column the process could not exist. One cannot measure time with it's self.
Explain how you could possibly take a rock and measure a paticular isotope and know what that rock had to begin with or if it changed over time. You cannot , it is impossible .

Here is a great example of circular reasoning. The dates of  rocks of a "known" age [recorded history less that 200 years] that radiometric methods date as hundreds of thousands of years to billions of years are anomolies. We know this becayse we have rocks we "know" really are that old.
That my friend is absurd.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:35 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then how did they professor?
Here's the senario .


First of all, when are you going to learn how to spell "scenario"?   For a guy who bitches about spelling, you sure can't spell very well....

You have some rocks from the moon. You measure them for say radiogenic argon .
Do you know how old they are?
No. You know the amount of radiogenic argon , that is all.


No, that's not all you know!  You know the  amount of argon40, you know the amount of potassium40, you know half life of patassium40, youknow the ratio between potassium40 and argon40.  So right away your initial premise is false.  By using simple math you can calculate how long it's taken for some of the potassium40 to decay into the argon40.  You can date how long it's been since this sample formed.  Then you want to verify that date, you test for other isotopes, compare their ratio of parent to daugther elements and if the dates of the 2 methods concur, then the date produced by the two different methods is accurate.  And as I showed in a previous post, one you ignored, some moon rock samples have been tested with 4 or more differetn methods and have all produced the same date ranges.  Please explain how 4 different dating methods, based on 4 different isotope decay rates, all give us the same wrong date...  You keep avoiding explaining the important questions, how come?

Can you compare that with the original quantity?No.

Why not, all the experts say you can, why are you right, and they're wrong???  All the so called problems you site have all been resolved, some decades ago, from here:
Argon
"In these slightly unusual cases, the date given by the normal potassium-argon method is too old. However, scientists in the mid-1960s came up with a way around this problem, the argon-argon method, discussed in the next section.
Argon-Argon. Even though it has been around for nearly half a century, the argon-argon method is seldom discussed by groups critical of dating methods. This method uses exactly the same parent and daughter isotopes as the potassium-argon method. In effect, it is a different way of telling time from the same clock. Instead of simply comparing the total potassium with the non-air argon in the rock, this method has a way of telling exactly what and how much argon is directly related to the potassium in the rock."

So the out of date problems you claim invalidate radiometric dating are know and have been corrected, sometimes decades ago....  You're completely wrong AGAIN!!!!

You have no way of knowing what that was.


you don't but the experts do.

If a little birdie told you what the original quantity was could you then produce a date?
No. Because you don't know if there was more than one heating -cooling event etc.


More than one heating event is no problem since this is readily apparent to the experts doing the dating.  From here:
ArgonII
"There are occasions when the argon-argon dating method does not give an age even if there is sufficient potassium in the sample and the rock was old enough to date. This most often occurs if the rock experienced a high temperature (usually a thousand degrees Fahrenheit or more) at some point since its formation. If that occurs, some of the argon gas moves around, and the analysis does not give a smooth plateau across the extraction temperature steps. An example of an argon-argon analysis that did not yield an age date is shown in Figure 3. Notice that there is no good plateau in this plot. In some instances there will actually be two plateaus, one representing the formation age, and another representing the time at which the heating episode occurred. But in most cases where the system has been disturbed, there simply is no date given. The important point to note is that, rather than giving wrong age dates, this method simply does not give a date if the system has been disturbed. This is also true of a number of other igneous rock dating methods, as we will describe below."
So you are wrong again, reheating events are apparent.

You are out of luck unless you have something to compare it with.
You don't , you lose .


No, as I've shown, every one of your premises have been wrong, you're the only one losing here.

Buy a dictionary. If literally all scientist agree with him then Baumgardner agrees with him. You really are out to lunch.

you're the one who's in trouble, literally (do you want me to define literally for you, seeing as how you have so many problems with definitions) all the experts accept radiometric dating and the ones who don't accept it can't refute it with facts, they reject it based on faith only!  So you're still batting .000.

Read what they are saying. They are saying some evolutionary scientist say what I am saying.
"Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others"
If it was not circular reasoning this would not be necessary!


But it's not necessary!  It's merely one more check in a very long list of checks!  You, like most close minded creationists, see only what you want to see and ignore the rest!  Didn't you read this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. "
Or this:
"Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. "

What strata did they use on the moon? You just are not bright enough to understand what you posted. I can't help that.

You're the one lacking in the brains department!  What strata DID they use for the moon rocks?  Obviously they used none.  And yet when the moon rocks were dated by 4 different methods and they produced a consistent date.  What is your explaination for that?  I notice you keep avoiding answering the question about different isotope dating methods giving the same date...

Sucessfully means producing the dates you expect.

No, it doesn't mean producing dates you expect, you still don't understand science, successfully means producing dates that can be independently verified.  And the moon rock dates are verified by multiple radiometric dating methods.  If all radiometric dating methods are wrong then dating by different isotopes will NOT give the same dates.  This is not the case for lunar samples.  you are wrong again.

Without a cross check there is no date, only a measure of an isotope.

And yet, as I have said numerous times and you fail to respond to, the samples are cross checked by different radiodate methods.

This is circular reasoning. The theory supports the theory.The only absolute date is made with a calender.

Nonsense!  How is this circular?  Fossils are found in a chronographical order, they show change through the millenium.  Geology confirms that it took  millions of years fior them to change.  No circularity!  Now we look at genetics, we can read the "genetic clock" in some organisms this also verifies that it took millions of years for these changes to take place.  Again, not circular reasoning, just independent lines of evidence converging to support evolution.  You always whine about "circular reasoning" but you can never show how it is circular!  Give it up, moron, no one is buying it!

And you call me a fraudulent quote miner? Why don't you print the rest of it. Obviously I was thinking one thing and typed another.

What am I a mind reader?!?!  yeah, obviously you were thinking one thing and typing another, you must do that a lot!  But when I make a simple typo, you jump all over me, not only are you a liar, you're a hypocrite!

He saw creation as a self evident truth and evolution as a fairy tale.

Because he was a brainwashed creationist, he had no evidence to support his fairytale...

He spent his life studying oil and gas deposits.
At the present rate that oil and gas leaks from the earth it would have all done so in about 35ka .


Ridiculous, show me how you arrived at that conclusion!  i say your lieing again and can't back up that assertion!  So, once again, put up or shut up!  You can make all the fantasitc claims you want, but until you can back them up, they're just fairytales that no one is buying.  No real geologist believes in that estimate and if your father did, he was a lousy geologist!

That is science. To bad it goes against your religion.

No it's not because youdon't know what science is or what reliegion is!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:57 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:57 PM on June 14, 2005 :

First of all, when are you going to learn how to spell "scenario"?   For a guy who bitches about spelling, you sure can't spell very well....
You win that point.

You have some rocks from the moon. You measure them for say radiogenic argon .
Do you know how old they are?
No. You know the amount of radiogenic argon , that is all.


No, that's not all you know!  You know the  amount of argon40, you know the amount of potassium40, you know half life of patassium40, youknow the ratio between potassium40 and argon40.  So right away your initial premise is false.  By using simple math you can calculate how long it's taken for some of the potassium40 to decay into the argon40.  You can date how long it's been since this sample formed.  Then you want to verify that date, you test for other isotopes, compare their ratio of parent to daugther elements and if the dates of the 2 methods concur, then the date produced by the two different methods is accurate.  And as I showed in a previous post, one you ignored, some moon rock samples have been tested with 4 or more differetn methods and have all produced the same date ranges.  Please explain how 4 different dating methods, based on 4 different isotope decay rates, all give us the same wrong date...  You keep avoiding explaining the important questions, how come?
No it is not! Without the original content, the knowledge of change over time and something to compare it with you have zip.
The reason one chooses a certain type of radiometric dating is one "knows" which one will give the "correct" date . They disagree consistantly.


Can you compare that with the original quantity?No.

Why not, all the experts say you can, why are you right, and they're wrong???  All the so called problems you site have all been resolved, some decades ago, from here:
So these experts have a time machine and can recover rocks from time in memorial and use them as a reference. How simple, why did I not think of that? I guess I'm not special.

"In these slightly unusual cases, the date given by the normal potassium-argon method is too old. However, scientists in the mid-1960s came up with a way around this problem, the argon-argon method, discussed in the next section.

Funny they don't explain why the unusual dates are too old.

Argon-Argon. Even though it has been around for nearly half a century, the argon-argon method is seldom discussed by groups critical of dating methods. This method uses exactly the same parent and daughter isotopes as the potassium-argon method. In effect, it is a different way of telling time from the same clock. Instead of simply comparing the total potassium with the non-air argon in the rock, this method has a way of telling exactly what and how much argon is directly related to the potassium in the rock."
What does knowing this tell you?Nothing!
And how do they know the dates were too old? Easy , it disagreed with the fossil dates. And since the theory of evolution proves the theory of evolution it is not circular reasoning. You are brilliant!


So the out of date problems you claim invalidate radiometric dating are know and have been corrected, sometimes decades ago....  You're completely wrong AGAIN!!!!
When echo when think talk , people listen! Get headache from echo!

you don't but the experts do.
How, the time machine ?

More than one heating event is no problem since this is readily apparent to the experts doing the dating.  From here:
Then explain all the dates from lava flows in new zealand.
The echo is giving me a headache -cya




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:24 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 10:24 PM on June 14, 2005 :
Then explain all the dates from lava flows in new zealand.


One simple answer, xenoliths.  They are pieces of unmelted rock carried in magma.  Easily identified by any reputable geologist looking at a thin section.  Were all xenoliths removed before the samples were analysed?





-------
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: 09:38 AM on June 15, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 2:10 PM on June 14, 2005 :
No .

Quote from peddler8111 at 2:35 PM on June 14, 2005 :
That is arrogant.



Luke 6:42

Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.




-------
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: 12:30 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No it is not! Without the original content, the knowledge of change over time and something to compare it with you have zip.
The reason one chooses a certain type of radiometric dating is one "knows" which one will give the "correct" date . They disagree consistantly.


No, youare wrong!  You can determine the original amount of the parent element!  I showed you how it's done.  So you have much more than "zip". your premise is flawed!  The reason one chooses a cerain isotope to use to date is because the experts know which samples are best dated by that isotope, no other reason.  And as I've already shown, the dating of samples by different radiometric methods DO NOT disagree constantly, they AGREE constantly.  You come in here, not knowing anything about radiometric dating and claim the experts are wrong, despite the 100's of thousands of dates they've obtained that do agree.  You are unable to back up ANY of your false claims with ANY evidence.  You are unable to refute any of the evidence presented to you.  You have nothing...

So these experts have a time machine and can recover rocks from time in memorial and use them as a reference. How simple, why did I not think of that? I guess I'm not special.

Of course not, they don't need a time machine, all they have to know is the ratio of parent element to daugther element and the half life of the parent element, that's all.  With that they can calculate the original amount of the parent element and they can accurately date the sample.  You still haven't explained how different dating methods give the same date.

What does knowing this tell you?Nothing!
And how do they know the dates were too old? Easy , it disagreed with the fossil dates. And since the theory of evolution proves the theory of evolution it is not circular reasoning. You are brilliant!


Nope, once again you are completely wrong!  Don't you read what's being posted?!?!  The orginal potassium argon method was showing dates too old as compared to other radiometric methods.  Using the argon argon method, we can tell the difference between the different types of argon in the sample, so we know exactly what argon comes from the decay of the potassium.  So your point is disproven.

Then explain all the dates from lava flows in new zealand.
The echo is giving me a headache -cya


Apoapsis did a good job of explaining them, where's your rebuttal?  And stick to the facts, stop making things up and using your own ignorance as a reason.  Face it, geologists don't care what dates are produced, creationists have a vested interest in seeing old dates disproved.  Once again,real scientists are objective, creationists are horribly biased.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:12 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:12 PM on June 15, 2005 :


No, youare wrong!  You can determine the original amount of the parent element!  I showed you how it's done.  So you have much more than "zip". your premise is flawed!  The reason one chooses a cerain isotope to use to date is because the experts know which samples are best dated by that isotope, no other reason.  And as I've already shown, the dating of samples by different radiometric methods DO NOT disagree constantly, they AGREE constantly.  You come in here, not knowing anything about radiometric dating and claim the experts are wrong, despite the 100's of thousands of dates they've obtained that do agree.  You are unable to back up ANY of your false claims with ANY evidence.  You are unable to refute any of the evidence presented to you.  You have nothing...
One can only test for isotopes , you cannot measure time this way unless you know the original content and what effect that content over time. You can not obtain dates on something like this, only infer them.
That is reality. Without the geologic collumn all this is mute . It is circular .[b]


Of course not, they don't need a time machine, all they have to know is the ratio of parent element to daugther element and the half life of the parent element, that's all.  With that they can calculate the original amount of the parent element and they can accurately date the sample.  You still haven't explained how different dating methods give the same date.
That is an assumption. You don't know if the sample has changed over time. Dates of rocks of known ages are almost always off by a factor of thousands. You really should try to remember what you say. You just got finished explaining why argonne gave dates too old and now they all agree. What will your story be tommorrow?


Nope, once again you are completely wrong!  Don't you read what's being posted?!?!  The orginal potassium argon method was showing dates too old as compared to other radiometric methods.  Using the argon argon method, we can tell the difference between the different types of argon in the sample, so we know exactly what argon comes from the decay of the potassium.  So your point is disproven.
I read your gibberish . Why do assume i don't ?You don't know, you cannot know, the original content because you don't know what affected the sample or if the rate changed over time. The only way to know a date is wrong is by comparing it to other rocks from similar strata. You date that by the fossil. It is a merry go round. When the date is known to be less thn 200 years it almost invariably reads hundreds of thousands to millions. Coal that dates 12ka with c-14 dates 12ma with pott-argon. This should send the whole idea that one can date with isotope testing to file 13. Evolution demands long ages so the facts are ignored.
Long ago and far far away![/b]


Apoapsis did a good job of explaining them, where's your rebuttal?  And stick to the facts, stop making things up and using your own ignorance as a reason.  Face it, geologists don't care what dates are produced, creationists have a vested interest in seeing old dates

Evolution is a fact is not an explanation, most scientist agree is not an explation. No matter how many times you make the test it is always the same.
Evolutionist are not biased? That is a fairy tale .[/b]



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 3:17 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One can only test for isotopes , you cannot measure time this way unless you know the original content and what effect that content over time

No, you've already been proven wrong here.  You can measure time here and the fact that all radiometric dtaing techniques agree proves that it is an accurate measurement.  not only that, all radiometric dating techniques agree not only with each other but with all non radiometric dating techniques.  You keepasserting this despite the evidence that has been provided that proves you wrong.  you provide no evidence to back up your claims, and you have nothing to rebutt the explainations that have been provided that refute your claims.  You can keep saying what ever you want, but the evidence proves you wrong.

You can not obtain dates on something like this, only infer them.

It's a well proved scientific method of obtaining dates, you have not been able to refute it, you haven't been able to refute the evidence.  And the fact that all dating techniques, both radiometric and non radiometric agree shows that you are wrong.

That is reality. Without the geologic collumn all this is mute . It is circular .

Nope, you've shown nothing of the kind,  and you still haven't explained how moon rocks have been dated that aren't found in the geologic column or how meteors found in artic ice packs are dated when they also aren't found in the geologic column.  No, your claim is wrong, dating is not circular.

That is an assumption.

No it's not, it's an observed phenomenon, no assumptions involved.

You don't know if the sample has changed over time.

yes the experts DO know if the sample has changed over time.  Reheating events are readily detectable, more daugther elements being added since the first formation of the sample is readily detectable and has been compensated for.

Dates of rocks of known ages are almost always off by a factor of thousands.

This is not true and you have been able to provide any valid examples of this happening.

You really should try to remember what you say. You just got finished explaining why argonne gave dates too old and now they all agree.

Can't read very well, can you, that's not what I said.  Some samples were dated too old, when compared with other radiometric dating techniques, the reason for this was discovered, argon argon testing eliminates this problem.  This is science in action, continually refining it's techniques and data.

What will your story be tommorrow?

Same as it's always been, radiometric dating works, it concurs with all other dating methods, the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old, all evidence found in geology refutes a world wide flood, all evidence in biology, geolgoy, astronomy, genetics, geography supports evolution.

I read your gibberish . Why do assume i don't ?

Because you still don't understand how radiometric dating works, you still ignore the evidence presented and can provide no evidence of your own to support your claims.

You don't know, you cannot know, the original content because you don't know what affected the sample or if the rate changed over time.

Already showed you how we can and do know the original content and how we can and do know what affected the sample over time.  your only response to this is "no you can't" with nothing to back it up.  And if you're talking about the decay rate, why do you think the decay rate can change?  Since we've been observing the decay rates of isotopes for the last 80 years they have not changed, looking at decay rates in supernova's with radiotelescopes and spectrometers the rates haven't changed in 180,000 years.  If these decay rates were able to change under natural earthly conditions, this woulod mean that the atomic theory is wrong, but since we use the atomic theory for many practical purposes, it's obvious that the atomic theory is NOT wrong and that decay rates have NOT changed.  Please present any evidence that they have changed...

The only way to know a date is wrong is by comparing it to other rocks from similar strata.

Wrong.

You date that by the fossil. It is a merry go round.

Wrong.  You've been shown why and you've been unable to refute it.

When the date is known to be less thn 200 years it almost invariably reads hundreds of thousands to millions.

Wrong, no evidence to back this up.

Coal that dates 12ka with c-14 dates 12ma with pott-argon.

Wrong, I mentioned this before but you refuse to comment on it.  Coal is never dated by C-14 because it is much too old for this method.  coal is not an igneous rock, so it would never be dated by this method.  Your example is simply not valid, why do you keep trying to use it?

This should send the whole idea that one can date with isotope testing to file 13.

No, merely what ever inaccurate source you are using.  

Evolution demands long ages so the facts are ignored.

Wrong.

Evolution is a fact is not an explanation, most scientist agree is not an explation.

I explained this to you before, are you intentionally ignoring the facts?!?!?!

Evolution is a fact, we see it happening, it is an observed phenomenon.  The theory of evolution explains why it happens and how it has happened since life first arose.  Virtually all scientists agree that the theory of evolution IS an explaination.

Evolutionist are not biased?

Not nearly as biased as creationists who believe in a disproven fairytale.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:56 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See here:

Both are correct. I do understand it. Please don't presume that because i disagree I do not understand. That is arrogant.

No, they both aren't correct. Radiometric dating is a more unaccurate term. Don't fuss with words. I'm not being arrogant, I'm correcting the use of the term "radiometric."

It makes no difference what the 1/2 life is if you don't know the original quantity of the isotope or the forces that changed it over time.
It is hypothetical as you say. It is not science.


This example is hypothetical, not fake. You don't understand. We are able to identify and measure an isotope. Do you think I'm lying? Geologists measure isotopes using a
"mass spectrometer."

Radioactive decay (or isotopic) is the spontaneous nuclear disintegration of isotopes with unstable nuclei. As protons and neutrons leave these atoms, energy is produced. These particles (that are leaving) can be detected using a Geiger counter.

My example was hypothetical, not the decaying. I was showing you that one element changes to another over time, by radioactive decay, and depending on what the element is, it has a specific, constant, non-changing rate of decay into the daughter product. There is nothing that is untrue. You are simply calling it wrong and announcing me as arrogant. As if that makes me wrong.

Please don't presume what I would ask. You contention that anyone who thinks radiometric dating is worthless does not understand it is arrogant. Measuring isotopes may have value but to be used for dating it requires information that cannot be known.

No it isn't. I'm just answering a potential question. Not being arrogant.

Furthermore, isotopes with unstable nuclei disintegrate. If you have a handful of, lets say, an isotope of potassium (in the form of a rock) with unstable nuclei, it will decay into a daughter product over a period of time. Because we know the rate of the decaying for that specific isotope, we can measure how much of the handful of potassium decays into the daughter product over time. That allows us to date fossils, rocks, etc.

Be specific. You are just repeating what you are told. All geologist know it is circular reasoning , a few admit it.
Without the hypothetical geologic column the process could not exist. One cannot measure time with it's self.


Repeating what I am being told? What does that mean? I explained it too you. We aren't measuring time. We are measuring the amount of daughter product in comparison with the amount of the unstable isotope. As long as we know (and we do know) the rate of decay from isotope to daughter, we can measure how long the rock as been decaying.

All geologists know it is circular reasoning? You didn't even explain what was circular. Regardless, please don't, because it isn't.

Explain how you could possibly take a rock and measure a paticular isotope and know what that rock had to begin with or if it changed over time. You cannot , it is impossible.

We do know. We measure how much of the isotope there is and how much of the daughter product of that isotope exists with it. It is not impossible. That is what scientists do.

Here is a great example of circular reasoning. The dates of  rocks of a "known" age [recorded history less that 200 years] that radiometric methods date as hundreds of thousands of years to billions of years are anomolies. We know this becayse we have rocks we "know" really are that old.
That my friend is absurd.


That doesn't make sense, please don't use radiometric dating, it isn't and accurate term, and we don't know how old a rock is until we date it. I have explained isotopic dating over and over and over, and it is not what you say it is, so please try to understand what I have explained and not assume it is wrong. This isn't a battle of wits-- I just want you to know what it is until you start arguing against it.

 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 5:29 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 3:56 PM on June 15, 2005 :

No, you've already been proven wrong here.  You can measure time here and the fact that all radiometric dtaing techniques agree proves that it is an accurate measurement.  not only that, all radiometric dating techniques agree not only with each other but with all non radiometric dating techniques.  

Please tell me about non radiometric techniques. I thought you an apaosi said they did not need a caomparison. Also explain how radio carbon can "date" coal at all. You never responded to the fact Argonne Labs proved coal and oil could form in weeks

It's a well proved scientific method of obtaining dates, you have not been able to refute it, you haven't been able to refute the evidence.  And the fact that all dating techniques, both radiometric and non radiometric agree shows that you are wrong.
They don't agree . If they did radiocarbon could not "date" coal at all, period. There are lots of examples of conflicts. Scientist that believe in evolution ignore them. You pretend they don't exist. [/b]

Nope, you've shown nothing of the kind,  and you still haven't explained how moon rocks have been dated that aren't found in the geologic column or how meteors found in artic ice packs are dated when they also aren't found in the geologic column.  No, your claim is wrong, dating is not circular.
Yes I have , over and over and over and over. If th best you can do is try to wear me down I am not impressed.
The isotope quantity in the rocks was compared with the isotope quantity of rocks on earth. That is the only possible way it could be done. It still did not work , some of the rocks gave dates as different as 2 ma to 2 ba with different methods. Of course the "incorrect" dates were from "contaminated" samples. Your ranting won't change that.



No it's not, it's an observed phenomenon, no assumptions involved.
You can't observe billions of years. It is pure imagination. It was a story invented to disprove the existence of God. It is a fairy tale, not science.


yes the experts DO know if the sample has changed over time.  Reheating events are readily detectable, more daugther elements being added since the first formation of the sample is readily detectable and has been compensated for.
That is impossible to know. It is a ridiculous argument. [/b]
This is not true and you have been able to provide any valid examples of this happening.[/b]
How can you prove that something that is not possible to know ever happened? That is a strawman and circular logic at it's worst. [/b]

[

Can't read very well, can you, that's not what I said.  Some samples were dated too old, when compared with other radiometric dating techniques, the reason for this was discovered, argon argon testing eliminates this problem.  This is science in action, continually refining it's techniques and data.
I read just fine. If you torture the data it will eventually comply to your wishes. There is no way to know if ANY of the dates are correct. No matter the reason if the date is not what evolution agrees with it is wrong. This is a perfect example of the theory proving the theory. Webster could not come up with a better example of circular reasoning than this.



Same as it's always been, radiometric dating works, it concurs with all other dating methods,

Only an evolutionist would defend circular reasoning with circular reasoning. It would be the same to say all dating methods concur with radiometric dating. It is circular logic.
Without the fossils it is not happening. That is what you are saying. Read your own words.


the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old, all evidence found in geology refutes a world wide flood, all evidence in biology, geolgoy, astronomy, genetics, geography supports evolution.
You are just ranting. Listen to a scientist, also an evolutionist.

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." "Everybody knows the fossil record doesn't provide much evidence for gradualism; it is full of gaps and discontinuities. These gaps are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the record, but this not an adequate explanation…This remarkable stasis [steadiness] has generally been ignored. If it doesn't agree with your ideas [talking to evolutionists] you don't talk about it." "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils." "Can a reasonable story of continuous change be constructed for all macroevolutionary events [i.e., hopeful monster theory]? My answer shall be no."
Dr. Steven Jay Gould


Because you still don't understand how radiometric dating works, you still ignore the evidence presented and can provide no evidence of your own to support your claims.
So if I don't agree I don't understand? Brilliant argument. You decide the defintion of words and what is evidence. I guess you have elected yourself the god of science . [/b]

You don't know, you cannot know, the original content because you don't know what affected the sample or if the rate changed over time.

Already showed you how we can and do know the original content and how we can and do know what affected the sample over time.  your only response to this is "no you can't" with nothing to back it up.  And if you're talking about the decay rate, why do you think the decay rate can change?  Since we've been observing the decay rates of isotopes for the last 80 years they have not changed,

Okay Demon. If what you say is true. That nothing has changed in 80 years of observation. Was the age of the earth correct 80 years ago?  Was it correct 25 years ago ? It has increased dramatically just in the last 25 years .That means all radiometric techniques were proven wrong by evolution theory the last time the age of the earth more than doubled. Explain that one .


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:21 AM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't ignore my post. Does that make me right? Guess so ;-)..
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 10:18 AM on June 16, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 5:29 PM on June 15, 2005 :
See here:

No, they both aren't correct. Radiometric dating is a more unaccurate term. Don't fuss with words. I'm not being arrogant, I'm correcting the use of the term "radiometric."
You are supremely arrogant.
ra·di·om·e·ter    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (rd-m-tr)
n.
A device that measures the intensity of radiant energy, consisting of a partially evacuated glass bulb containing lightweight vertical vanes, each blackened on one side, suspended radially about a central vertical axis to permit their revolution about the axis as a result of incident radiation.
An instrument that detects electromagnetic radiation
The dictionary says it is correct. Lots of scientist use it . It is perfectly descriptive.



This example is hypothetical, not fake. You don't understand. We are able to identify and measure an isotope. Do you think I'm lying? Geologists measure isotopes using a
"mass spectrometer."
I never said we could not measure an isotope. You are not making sense .

Radioactive decay (or isotopic) is the spontaneous nuclear disintegration of isotopes with unstable nuclei. As protons and neutrons leave these atoms, energy is produced. These particles (that are leaving) can be detected using a Geiger counter.
You are unbelievably arrogant! If you want to pretend I am unaware of radioactive decay do so. It is insulting to have you act this way. And then you blame me for getting angry? You were taught to think anyone who questions naturalism is stupid. That is stupid. Please don't "instruct" me anymore. Make your point, I can see you think I don't know what dirt is so please move on. [/b]

My example was hypothetical, not the decaying. I was showing you that one element changes to another over time, by radioactive decay, and depending on what the element is, it has a specific, constant, non-changing rate of decay into the daughter product. There is nothing that is untrue. You are simply calling it wrong and announcing me as arrogant. As if that makes me wrong.
Being arrogant is being arogant , being wrong is being wrong. You are both. You make the ststement that the rate of decay is unchanging. That is a fallacious statement. We see a constant rate of decay in a controlled environment over a set period of time. The actual environment is unknown and any changes in the quantity by water etc. are unknown. It is an assumption based on the assumption of materialism. It is circular logic.
We know that materialism is true because the rate is constant over long periods of time. We know long periods of time are true because the rate is constant. You are trying to prove a theory with a theory. That is absurd. [/b]


No it isn't. I'm just answering a potential question. Not being arrogant.
You assume I don't understand because I don't agree with you. How do you know this is true? Simple i,f I agreed with you it would prove I understood. [/b]

Furthermore, isotopes with unstable nuclei disintegrate. If you have a handful of, lets say, an isotope of potassium (in the form of a rock) with unstable nuclei, it will decay into a daughter product over a period of time. Because we know the rate of the decaying for that specific isotope, we can measure how much of the handful of potassium decays into the daughter product over time. That allows us to date fossils, rocks, etc.
This is circular reasoning. The information about the quantity of a paticular isotope is not a date. The date come from camparing that figure to the amount of a paticular isotope in a rock of "known" age. The fossils date the rocks. the rocks date the fossils. That is how it works. [/b]

Repeating what I am being told? What does that mean? I explained it too you. We aren't measuring time. We are measuring the amount of daughter product in comparison with the amount of the unstable isotope. As long as we know (and we do know) the rate of decay from isotope to daughter, we can measure how long the rock as been decaying.

You just got though saying:
"Because we know the rate of the decaying for that specific isotope, we can measure how much of the handful of potassium decays into the daughter product over time. That allows us to date fossils, rocks, etc."
So you say you are not measuring time but you are dating rocks and fossils? That is measuring time, that is what dating means.
date1    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (dt)
n.

Time stated in terms of the day, month, and year.
A statement of calendar time, as on a document.
A specified day of a month.

A particular point or period of time at which something happened or existed, or is expected to happen.
dates The years of someone's birth and death: Beethoven's dates were 1770 to 1827.
The time during which something lasts; duration.
The time or historical period to which something belongs: artifacts of a later date.

You really seem confused about this subject IMO.

All geologists know it is circular reasoning? You didn't even explain what was circular. Regardless, please don't, because it isn't.
Can't agrue with your logic.

We do know. We measure how much of the isotope there is and how much of the daughter product of that isotope exists with it. It is not impossible. That is what scientists do.
[b[ You are babbling. The question is not can we measure the isotope or it's daughter products. It is how can me measure time with that information?
Stick to the subject please.[/b]



That doesn't make sense, please don't use radiometric dating, it isn't and accurate term, and we don't know how old a rock is until we date it. I have explained isotopic dating over and over and over, and it is not what you say it is, so please try to understand what I have explained and not assume it is wrong. This isn't a battle of wits-- I just want you to know what it is until you start arguing against it.


[b[ If it was a battle of wits I would surrender if I was you. You just said we can not know the date of a rock untill we date it. That is silly. We see rocks form all the time. Ever seen a picture of a volcano?
I don't assume it is wrong and I do understand it. I know it is wrong !
Rocks that we have pictures and video and sound of while they formed "date" millions of years old. Radiometric techniques do not "date " anything, they measure isotopes.
[/b]
[i]


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:24 AM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 11:24 AM on June 16, 2005 :
This is circular reasoning. The information about the quantity of a paticular isotope is not a date. The date come from camparing that figure to the amount of a paticular isotope in a rock of "known" age.


I don't know who fed you this information, but it is just flat out wrong.



The fossils date the rocks. the rocks date the fossils. That is how it works.

No, that is not how it works.  No matter how desperately you want to cling to that belief, it is wrong.  Period.



Figure 4. A rubidium-strontium three-isotope plot. When a rock cools, all its minerals have the same ratio of strontium-87 to strontium-86, though they have varying amounts of rubidium. As the rock ages, the rubidium decreases by changing to strontium-87, as shown by the dotted arrows. Minerals with more rubidium gain more strontium-87, while those with less rubidium do not change as much. Notice that at any given time, the minerals all line up--a check to ensure that the system has not been disturbed.

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective


-------
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: 12:43 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from peddler8111 at 12:21 AM on June 16, 2005 :
Please tell me about non radiometric techniques.


Drill a core from a glacier and count layers.

Greenland GISP2




-------
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: 3:20 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See here:

Being arrogant is being arogant , being wrong is being wrong. You are both. You make the ststement that the rate of decay is unchanging. That is a fallacious statement. We see a constant rate of decay in a controlled environment over a set period of time. The actual environment is unknown and any changes in the quantity by water etc. are unknown. It is an assumption based on the assumption of materialism. It is circular logic.
We know that materialism is true because the rate is constant over long periods of time. We know long periods of time are true because the rate is constant. You are trying to prove a theory with a theory. That is absurd.


See, you don't understand. The rate of decay isn't changed by water or other external forces. It is constant. Regardless of whether it was underwater or being hit with a stick for 5 million years, it would disintegrate at the same rate. You just assumed the rate is constant in a given environment, but its the same rate, regardless of environment. A rock that is 5 million years old is going to be dated by scientists as 5 million years old, regardless of whether it was acted upon by external forces. I

Furthermore, I'm not proving a theory with a theory. Materialism is a socialogical concept. There is not "rate" of it. What do you mean by rate? Rate of what? Long periods of time are true because the rate is constant? That doesn't make sense. Stop bull-shiting because you know I'm right.

You assume I don't understand because I don't agree with you. How do you know this is true? Simple i,f I agreed with you it would prove I understood.

That isn't true. You explain what you think isotopic dating is, and I explain that you are wrong, and you assume that because I don't agree with you I don't think you understand? Well, yes, I don't agree with you because you don't understand, and you refuse to understand.

However, its still possible for you to understand and not agree with me, but you keep telling me what you think isopotic dating is, and that's not what it is. If you keeping saying things that aren't true, I'm obviously not going to agree with you.

This is circular reasoning. The information about the quantity of a paticular isotope is not a date. The date come from camparing that figure to the amount of a paticular isotope in a rock of "known" age. The fossils date the rocks. the rocks date the fossils. That is how it works.
[/b]

But we don't know the age yet. What do you mean by a "known" age? Isotopes from millions of years ago still exist. That's how we can date them. When the specific isotopes disintegrate, their daughter products aren't unstable isotopes anymore, because they have stable nuclei.

Because we know the rate of the decaying for that specific isotope, we can measure how much of the handful of potassium decays into the daughter product over time. That allows us to date fossils, rocks, etc."
So you say you are not measuring time but you are dating rocks and fossils? That is measuring time, that is what dating means.
date1    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (dt)
n.

Time stated in terms of the day, month, and year.
A statement of calendar time, as on a document.
A specified day of a month.

A particular point or period of time at which something happened or existed, or is expected to happen.
dates The years of someone's birth and death: Beethoven's dates were 1770 to 1827.
The time during which something lasts; duration.
The time or historical period to which something belongs: artifacts of a later date.


Finally, you agree with me. But I was reacting to when you said, "measuring time with time." We're not measuring time with time.

I see your point though-- we are measuring the quantities. However, from the quantities a date can be derived. But that is not what is being directly measured. It is indirectly resulted in.

I see what you see now-- when I measure the quantities of a daughter product in comparison with its decaying isotope, I can date the rock because I know how long it takes the decaying from one element to another. If it takes 24 hours for a rock to turn completely from, lets say, argon to hydrogen, then 12 hours after the decaying has begun, I can measure how much of the rock is argon and how much of it is hydrogen. It is 50-50. The rock must be 12 hours old. Get it?

If it was a battle of wits I would surrender if I was you. You just said we can not know the date of a rock untill we date it. That is silly. We see rocks form all the time. Ever seen a picture of a volcano?
I don't assume it is wrong and I do understand it. I know it is wrong !
Rocks that we have pictures and video and sound of while they formed "date" millions of years old. Radiometric techniques do not "date " anything, they measure isotopes.


You fool. If a rock forms from a volcano, we would be measuring the same isotopes found inside the volcano in the rock itself. It would be dated to however many million years anyway, because the stuff in the volcano has been in existence for that long!

And no you don't understand it. Sorry peddler, you can try as hard as you want, and be as passionate and rhetorical as you need to be, and your "father" (from an earlier argument, apparently) can tell you its wrong over and over and over, but that won't make it wrong. It'll only make me laugh. :-) Have a nice day, peddler.

(Edited by Pallim 6/16/2005 at 5:12 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 5:07 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, didn't mean to quote, ment to edit :-).

(Edited by Pallim 6/16/2005 at 5:11 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 5:10 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye. .

An Atheist with a Bible.
Jer 10:2  Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
Psa 94:10  He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
Psa 2:1  Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

Psa 59:8  But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.











-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 7:45 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 5:07 PM on June 16, 2005 :
See here:



See, you don't understand. The rate of decay isn't changed by water or other external forces. It is constant. Regardless of whether it was underwater or being hit with a stick for 5 million years, it would disintegrate at the same rate. You just assumed the rate is constant in a given environment, but its the same rate, regardless of environment. A rock that is 5 million years old is going to be dated by scientists as 5 million years old, regardless of whether it was acted upon by external forces. I
Really. So water cannot transfer radioactive isotopes?etter clue the folks at Oakridge in. They seem  to think it can. Maybe you could go there and instruct them.
Let me illustrate, Let's say I drop by your place, having never seen a  child before, and I decide to determine her age. So, everyday for a month I measure her height. I discover that she grew from 1.366 meters (4' 5 3/4") to 1.370 meters (4' 5 7/8). By extrapolation into the past (to zero, I said I knew nothing of children. I find that she is 28.54 years old. You look at me like I am crazy, because you were there from start to finish and you know she is only 13 year old. But I have absolute empirical evidence that a child grows 0.004 meters per month!


Furthermore, I'm not proving a theory with a theory. Materialism is a socialogical concept. There is not "rate" of it. What do you mean by rate? Rate of what? Long periods of time are true because the rate is constant? That doesn't make sense. Stop bull-shiting because you know I'm right.
Testy aren't we? :}

That isn't true. You explain what you think isotopic dating is, and I explain that you are wrong, and you assume that because I don't agree with you I don't think you understand? Well, yes, I don't agree with you because you don't understand, and you refuse to understand.
Perhaps you could teach a course in circular thinking. You really excel at it. You a natural.

However, its still possible for you to understand and not agree with me, but you keep telling me what you think isopotic dating is, and that's not what it is. If you keeping saying things that aren't true, I'm obviously not going to agree with you.
And you know they are not true because I disagree with you. You are good!

But we don't know the age yet. What do you mean by a "known" age? Isotopes from millions of years ago still exist. That's how we can date them. When the specific isotopes disintegrate, their daughter products aren't unstable isotopes anymore, because they have stable nuclei.

The theory proves the theory. You are on a roll!
"Isotopes from millions of years ago still exist. That's how we can date them."
We can date isotopes from millions of years ago because they exist! If they didn't exist . we could not date them.
It's so simple Demon could grasp it!


Finally, you agree with me. But I was reacting to when you said, "measuring time with time." We're not measuring time with time.

Oh contrare. That is precisely what you are doing.There is no way to know if the exrtrapolation of short periods of time-radioactive decay-changes over time. There must be a reference. There is!
""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) "


I see your point though-- we are measuring the quantities. However, from the quantities a date can be derived. But that is not what is being directly measured. It is indirectly resulted in.
How can the date be derived? If you saw my point you would realize I am not crazy. It is circular reasoning. If evolution theory had not already dated the rocks with the fossils the time scale would not exist. The theory of evolution is being used to prove the theory of evolution. The same is true with morphology. I think you may be the only one here smart enough to see through this. You are starting to talk completely in circles and I think it is going to dawn on you soon.


I see what you see now-- when I measure the quantities of a daughter product in comparison with its decaying isotope, I can date the rock because I know how long it takes the decaying from one element to another. If it takes 24 hours for a rock to turn completely from, lets say, argon to hydrogen, then 12 hours after the decaying has begun, I can measure how much of the rock is argon and how much of it is hydrogen. It is 50-50. The rock must be 12 hours old. Get it?
No , I don't get it. If I watch a runner run the first 3 feet of a race I can assume it will take him 40 seconds to run the 100 . If I watch just the final 3 I can assume he ran it in 6 seconds. Of course either answer can be easily disproved . One can easily watch the entire race. In fact many similar races and get similar results.
Millions of years cannot be watched. It is an unfalsifiable assumption. It is not science , it is a fairy tale, pure imagination.


You fool. If a rock forms from a volcano, we would be measuring the same isotopes found inside the volcano in the rock itself. It would be dated to however many million years anyway, because the stuff in the volcano has been in existence for that long!
Your losing it! You are either going to forsake evolution or become Demons twin. It ain't lookin' good for you.
No . that is not the way it works. The radiometric measurement assumes that the time has lapsed since the heating event. That is the measurement. There should be no difference between a rock formed by a volcanic event and the first one that ever existed at the beginning. If you could date rocks by measuring radioactivive isotopes present in the rock a 200 hundred year old rock would date 200 years , not hundreds of thousands or millions or billions of years.
The argon would escape during the volcanic event. Evolutionist geologist claim these hundreds and hundreds of old dates for rocks of known ages are "contaminated" . They do not say they should test that old. You will find this to be true.
You are living a lie.
What do you think the rocks were to begin with?
If you would read the minutes of the Geological Convention since the 40's they have no answer for granite. Check it out.


And no you don't understand it. Sorry peddler, you can try as hard as you want, and be as passionate and rhetorical as you need to be, and your "father" (from an earlier argument, apparently) can tell you its wrong over and over and over, but that won't make it wrong. It'll only make me laugh. :-) Have a nice day, peddler.
What happened to -You Fool! You are losing it.. Perhaps Demon could spot you some thorazine. You really should chill out. Stress is a killer
BTW my Father is dead and therefore does not tell me anything anymore.
There are many examples where the dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar "dating" of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the "dates" range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14]
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that "excess" argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.[15] This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth's crust. This is consistent with a young world -- the argon has had too little time to escape.[16] If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?






(Edited by peddler8111 6/17/2005 at 07:53 AM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 8:42 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 8:42 PM on June 16, 2005 :
No , I don't get it. If I watch a runner run the first 3 feet of a race I can assume it will take him 40 seconds to run the 100 .


Now we're getting somewhere.  

You are measuring the rate and calculating how long it would take to run 100.

If I watch just the final 3 I can assume he ran it in 6 seconds.


How so?  Are you assuming he cheated?   Are you assuming he was magically transported from the start to the finish even though he is sweating and panting?

How can you justify this assumption?



-------
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: 10:02 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 7:45 PM on June 16, 2005 :
An Atheist with a Bible.


That's a good one.  The next time it's my turn to be president of church council maybe they'll let me off.




-------
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: 10:16 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:02 AM on June 17, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 8:42 PM on June 16, 2005 :
No , I don't get it. If I watch a runner run the first 3 feet of a race I can assume it will take him 40 seconds to run the 100 .


Now we're getting somewhere.  

You are measuring the rate and calculating how long it would take to run 100.

If I watch just the final 3 I can assume he ran it in 6 seconds.


How so?  Are you assuming he cheated?   Are you assuming he was magically transported from the start to the finish even though he is sweating and panting?

How can you justify this assumption?



Apparently you are not a runner. It is the same with bycycle and car racing as well . Actually I used to make money off of people who don't realize that a person can out run a bicyle for a short distance. One has to overcome inertia.
If you were to time the first 3 feet of a foot race and extrapolate the time to the entire race you would come out with a very slow, and incorrect time. If you just clocked the last 3 feet and extrapolated it the time would be faster than the actual time.

It was an analogy.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:53 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:16 AM on June 17, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 7:45 PM on June 16, 2005 :
An Atheist with a Bible.


That's a good one.  The next time it's my turn to be president of church council maybe they'll let me off.




Well if that is true that you are the President of the church council I apologize for refering to you as an atheist.
You certainly think and act like one.
IMHO




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:56 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please tell me about non radiometric techniques

You mean like ice core samples, lake varves, dendochronology, stuff like that, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

I thought you an apaosi said they did not need a caomparison.

They don't need a comparison, but scientists cross check everything.   So no, they don't NEED to compare them to non radiometric dates but they do anyway and they agree.  Non radiometric dates match the radiometric dates, ensuring that all methods are accurate.

Also explain how radio carbon can "date" coal at all.

I never saw any explaination for why C-14 dating was used on coal so why don't you post it again.  It just isn't done.  Creationists are infamous for using the wrong techniques to date samples and then claiming this disproves radiometric dating as a whole. Sounds like you're doing the same thing.  

You never responded to the fact Argonne Labs proved coal and oil could form in weeks


In the lab and in nature are two different things, no comparison.  And you conveniently ignored all the time it would take for the organic matter to  accumulate and for the matter to be completely buried.  

They don't agree . If they did radiocarbon could not "date" coal at all, period. There are lots of examples of conflicts. Scientist that believe in evolution ignore them. You pretend they don't exist.

Oh but thye do agree, I've provided plenty of examples of just how well they do agree.  You have provided no examples of how they disagree, once again, no evidence to back up your claims.  And radiocarbon can not be used to date coal, it's too old.  And no scientist ignores any dates, you just made that up because you can't refute the facts with real evidence.

The isotope quantity in the rocks was compared with the isotope quantity of rocks on earth.

Ridiculous!  Why would they have to compare the isotope quantities in moon rocks with those on earth?!?!  That doesn't even make sense!  All they have to know is the RATIO of parent element to the daugther element!  Why would they need a comparison for that?!?!  Back up your silly claim or withdraw it!  

That is the only possible way it could be done.

Wrong!  Learn a little bit about radiometric dating, you don't know anything about it!

It still did not work , some of the rocks gave dates as different as 2 ma to 2 ba with different methods.

This isn't true, I've given examples of congruent dating of the same samples with different methods, even though you are continually asked to give examples of wildly different dates, you are unable to do so.  This can only mean you're making up things again.

Of course the "incorrect" dates were from "contaminated" samples. Your ranting won't change that.

Why would my rantings change anything?  Of course there are contaminated samples, this is a fact, so what?  We're only concerned with the good samples, the ones suited for dating with a specific technique.  You can't just date any rock with any method, you have to know what your doing.  This still doesn't change the fact that all dating methods agree, it's a 4.6 billion year old earth and about a 13 billion year old universe.

You can't observe billions of years. It is pure imagination

No but you can observe the decay rates of various isotopes and you can use the ratio of paretn element and daugther element to determine how long it's been since the parent element has formed.  

It was a story invented to disprove the existence of God.

hahahaaahahaha!!!!  That atheist conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger all the time!

It is a fairy tale, not science.

Too bad you haven't been able to prove that!

That is impossible to know. It is a ridiculous argument.

It's impossible to know if a rock has been reheated and reduced to magma?!?!  Igneous rocks that are heated long enough become metamorphic rock, which is easily distinquishable from igneous rock.  your claim is wrong.

How can you prove that something that is not possible to know ever happened? That is a strawman and circular logic at it's worst.


What?!?!?!?!  You originally said:
"Dates of rocks of known ages are almost always off by a factor of thousands."

I say you are wrong and can't produce any evidence to back up your claim (as usaul).  If you want to support your statement, show us examples where dates of rocks are almost always off by a factor of thuousand.  I've produced examples of dating methods agreeing, you can't do the same to support your claim.  Your logic is extremely poor.

There is no way to know if ANY of the dates are correct.

Then why do all dating methods agree, still can't explain that can you.

This is a perfect example of the theory proving the theory. Webster could not come up with a better example of circular reasoning than this.

But nobody sees how it's circular!  It's not circular!  One dating method gives us a date, we use a different method and it gives us the same date, they concur.  The logical inference is that the date obtained by two independent methods is correct!  How is that circular?!?!?!

Only an evolutionist would defend circular reasoning with circular reasoning. It would be the same to say all dating methods concur with radiometric dating. It is circular logic.


This proves you don't know what circular logic is!  Independent methods verify the dates given, that's not circular, that's 2 or more different methods concurring, independently verified.  Christ, man, learn what a circular agruement is!  Here's the classic example of a circular arguement again:
"The Bible is the word of God.  How do we know?  Because the Bible tells us."

Without the fossils it is not happening. That is what you are saying. Read your own words.

i know exactly what I'm saying, you're the one that's having the problem because you don't understand radiometric dating, paleontology, science and apparently have no reading comprehension.

You are just ranting. Listen to a scientist, also an evolutionist.

And again, you don't understand what Gould is saying!  Gould isn't saying the fossil record doesn't support evolution, he's just saying it doesn't support gradulism!  So what's your point?!?!

So if I don't agree I don't understand? Brilliant argument.

It's not a matter of whether you agree or not, it's whether you can bring evidence to support your claim, you have brought none.  Not only that, you've shown your ignorance of radiometric dating.  So no, we know you don't understand because of your glaring errors in reference to radiometric dating.

You decide the defintion of words and what is evidence. I guess you have elected yourself the god of science .

Nah, I just comprehend what I read and take the time to do the research, two things you can't do.

You don't know, you cannot know, the original content because you don't know what affected the sample or if the rate changed over time.

yes you can know, the daugther element is created by the decay of the parent element.
Add the amount of the daugther element to the parent element and that's how much of the parent element originally existed.  And nuclear decay rates don't change due to any naturally occurring conditions on earth.  We've been testing the decay rates for over 80 years and they haven't changed.  We've examined them in super novas and so we know decay rates haven't changed in 180,000 years.   The atomic theory says decay rates don't change.  What evidence do you have that they can change and what evidence do you have that they did?

Okay Demon. If what you say is true. That nothing has changed in 80 years of observation. Was the age of the earth correct 80 years ago?  Was it correct 25 years ago ? It has increased dramatically just in the last 25 years .That means all radiometric techniques were proven wrong by evolution theory the last time the age of the earth more than doubled. Explain that one .

Do you EVER make sense?  Decay rates haven't changed in the 80 years we've been observing them.  It took a little while to figure out how to obtain the age of the earth from this data, but by 1953 the age of the earth was calclated to be 4.5 ± 0.3 billion years.
hasn't changed much since then, only refined.
You don't seem to understand science builds on what has gone before.  It catalogues new data, tests old data and viable theories must be able to explain both the old data and the new data that arises.  That science developes new theories to better explain data is it's greatest strength.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:54 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I once read a book on creationist thought, written by a philospher who was once a devout Chrisitian and is now an athiest.

He states the worse argument a creationist can offer is "its impossible." This spectacular key allows them to deny their opponent's evidence for their claims. An instant veto in a sense. All forms of evidence for evolution, morphology, genetics, biology, molecular biology, embroyology, mathematics, geology, and ecology become instantly untrue.

It was a story invented to disprove the existence of God

It is a fairy tale, not science.

You can't observe billions of years. It is pure imagination

There is no way to know if ANY of the dates are correct

Look at these statements. In your first statement, that shows that you are paranoid and fearful to consider the possibility of evolution being correct. The Adam and Eve story certainly sounds nice, but I prefer the truth instead of a beautiful-sounding lie.

In your second statement, you have to be educated in science before you can make any judgements about it.

In your third statement, it shows that you are shallow and are not only not able to understand isotopic dating, you don't want to understand it. Another example of "it just isn't possible."

Your fourth statement is old-fashioned denial. Another example of "it just isn't possible."
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 5:00 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 5:00 PM on June 18, 2005 :
I once read a book on creationist thought, written by a philospher who was once a devout Chrisitian and is now an athiest.

He states the worse argument a creationist can offer is "its impossible." This spectacular key allows them to deny their opponent's evidence for their claims. An instant veto in a sense. All forms of evidence for evolution, morphology, genetics, biology, molecular biology, embroyology, mathematics, geology, and ecology become instantly untrue.
So he is now an atheist and wishes to advise me?That's special.
Mathematics ? Impossible? Pray tell?
What has ecology to do with evolution?
This is very strange statement you made.
I really have little clue what you are talking about, do you?


Look at these statements. In your first statement, that shows that you are paranoid and fearful to consider the possibility of evolution being correct. The Adam and Eve story certainly sounds nice, but I prefer the truth instead of a beautiful-sounding lie.
Paranoid, fearful ? You are delusional if you believe that. Of course if you believe matter created itself and then matter created intellifgence you are delusional. That is impossible. Pasteur put that to rest 120 years ago.


In your second statement, you have to be educated in science before you can make any judgements about it.
And you propose to do that? You have imagination.

In your third statement, it shows that you are shallow and are not only not able to understand isotopic dating, you don't want to understand it. Another example of "it just isn't possible."
I understand radiometric testing just fine. I do not believe it can be used to measure time. Be specific you are just blowing wind here.
You sound like Demon. If you don't agree with me you don't understand. Drivel, that's all this is.


Your fourth statement is old-fashioned denial. Another example of "it just isn't possible."
Is that your best shot? I am not at all impressed.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 7:22 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:54 AM on June 18, 2005 :

You mean like ice core samples, lake varves, dendochronology, stuff like that, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
It's your claim. Varves are proof of nothing. We have seen sedimentlayers hundreds of feet thick form in hours. You can say anything.



They don't need a comparison, but scientists cross check everything.   So no, they don't NEED to compare them to non radiometric dates but they do anyway and they agree.  Non radiometric dates match the radiometric dates, ensuring that all methods are accurate.
If that is true then the the sediment layers at Mt. St. Helens and in Iceland that formed in hours prove the world formed in 1926. Briliant! [/b]


I never saw any explaination for why C-14 dating was used on coal so why don't you post it again.  It just isn't done.  Creationists are infamous for using the wrong techniques to date samples and then claiming this disproves radiometric dating as a whole. Sounds like you're doing the same thing.  
Why is it incorrect? Coal is organic. It dates first time every time with c-14. The only reason you say it is wrong is because it proves that coal is not that old. Tell me why c-14 dating of coal is incorrect?
After all ALL methods agree? That is what you said.



In the lab and in nature are two different things, no comparison.  And you conveniently ignored all the time it would take for the organic matter to  accumulate and for the matter to be completely buried.  
I guess we should ababdon all research done in the lab if that is true.
It is you that belives in gradualism. I think it was deposited in a bit over a year.


Oh but thye do agree, I've provided plenty of examples of just how well they do agree.  You have provided no examples of how they disagree, once again, no evidence to back up your claims.  And radiocarbon can not be used to date coal, it's too old.  And no scientist ignores any dates, you just made that up because you can't refute the facts with real evidence.

I have a video of it being done from the harvesting of the sample to the final test. But what difference would it make?
You say lab results are irrelevant so all radiomaetric dating is irrelevant.
Congatuations!
You have falsified radiometric dating!
You said:
"In the lab and in nature are two different things, no comparison."


Unless you want to try and explain how radiometric dating is done in nature , we're done!
CYA




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 8:06 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So he is now an atheist and wishes to advise me?That's special.
Mathematics ? Impossible? Pray tell?
What has ecology to do with evolution?
This is very strange statement you made.
I really have little clue what you are talking about, do you?


Won't believe an athiest. You just like any other creationist-- if they don't believe in God, they must be some heathen and shouldn't be considered. How quaint, you commoner.

Mathematics, child. It explains the movements of the earth- continental drift. Explains why the earth is a near-sphere.

Ecology-- ecosystems, co-evolution, natural selection directly observed.

Paranoid, fearful ? You are delusional if you believe that. Of course if you believe matter created itself and then matter created intellifgence you are delusional. That is impossible. Pasteur put that to rest 120 years ago.


Can you define "intelligence?" No, I didn't think so. As for the creation of the universe, saying is was an intelligent being is conceded and is an easy way to answer the question instead of trying to give it some good thought.

And you propose to do that? You have imagination.


Educate you? I? I'm sure I could, but its not like you have the ability to learn. Imagination? Try some fairy tales, one who wishes creationism were true.

I understand radiometric testing just fine. I do not believe it can be used to measure time. Be specific you are just blowing wind here.
You sound like Demon. If you don't agree with me you don't understand. Drivel, that's all this is.


You don't understand it, and its not that you don't think it measures time, its that you don't want it to, otherwise it says creationism is wrong. The only times I have seen the word drivel used is with religious fundamentalists and Nazis.

Is that your best shot? I am not at all impressed.

Best shot? Because you didn't say some counter to my argument, I guess that means I'm right! Yay! Have a nice day :-)...
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:32 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 8:06 PM on June 18, 2005 :
Why is it incorrect? Coal is organic. It dates first time every time with c-14. The only reason you say it is wrong is because it proves that coal is not that old. Tell me why c-14 dating of coal is incorrect?


Simple, the background flux of neutrons (created in part from spontaneous uranuim fission :-) creates enough C-14 all the time such that you can never get a zero level of it.  That's why nobody tries to date anything older than about 50ky with that method.

Actually, a lot of work has gone into looking for underground oil reservoirs with the lowest possible C-14 counts because it is needed for neutrino detectors.

NOBODY expected to find any with a zero level.  Why would they?





-------
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: 09:30 AM on June 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's your claim. Varves are proof of nothing. We have seen sedimentlayers hundreds of feet thick form in hours. You can say anything.


First of all, it's not my claim, it's the claim of the experts.  And they're claim is supported by the evidence.  Non radiometric dating techniques agree with radiometric dating techniques.  You keep avoiding this fact.  You have been asked repeatedly for examples of dates being discordant, but you just can't produce them.
Why do lake varves prove nothing, another incorrect statement that you can't back up.
From here:
LakeVarves
"In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from recently revised absolute German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves (2). Figure PE-4 shows the best match between the tree-ring and the Lake Suigetsu chronologies, estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve. The features in our data overlapping the tree-ring calibration agree very well, even for "wiggles" in the 14C calibration curves. Using this match, we defined the absolute time scale for the Lake Suigetsu varves chronology. The 29,100 yr Lake Suigetsu chronology then covers the absolute age range from 8830 to 37,930 cal BP."
Here we see lake varve date calibration compared to tree ring counts and C14 dating, they concur.  Once again, experts know how to read lake varve counts, what evidence do you have to indicate they are wrong?  Why do they concur so closely with other dating techniques?  Still can't answer those questions, can you...

If that is true then the the sediment layers at Mt. St. Helens and in Iceland that formed in hours prove the world formed in 1926. Briliant!

Nonsense!  How do ash and lava formations from Mt. St. Helens compare to dating techniques concurring????  Total non sequiter.
Geologists know how sedimentation works, to claim that simply because some processes occur quickly that all sedimentation processes MUST occur quickly is simple minded.  Geologists can tell them apart.  As to iceland, what the  hell are you talking about???

Why is it incorrect? Coal is organic.

No scientist uses C14 to date coal because they know it takes millions of years for coal to form.  I asked you to provide examples of C14 being used to date coal, you haven't been able to do this.  Can't support your claim, again.  

It dates first time every time with c-14.

There are other reasons why there are trace amounts of radioactive carbon in coal beds, and these reasons invalidate using that method of dating on coal.  From here:
DatingCoal
"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.
(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)"

there you go, reasons why C14 is present in ancient coal beds.
As I said, no geologist would try to date coal with C14, but there are other reasons for measuring C14 in ancient coal beds.  From the same link as above:
"Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos."

So yes there are reasons for measuring C14 in fossil fuels and no, those reasons are not to date it, the experts know that there are other sources of C14 production that make it completely unreliable for dating purposes.

The only reason you say it is wrong is because it proves that coal is not that old. Tell me why c-14 dating of coal is incorrect?

I just did.  You haven't provided any examples to support your statements.  The only reason you make this claim is a futile effort to refute all radiometric dating.  Since you did no research on the issue, since you can give us no evidence to support your claim and since the experts have refuted your position, you are wrong.

After all ALL methods agree? That is what you said.

Yes all methods do agree, when used properly and on the samples they were designed to test.  One of your many problems is you don't understand how science works.  All methods can't be used on all samples, it's as simple as that.  Scientists know the limitations of the tools they use.  No scientists C14 to date coal.

I guess we should ababdon all research done in the lab if that is true.

Why?  Were did I infer that?  The truth is, the experiment to produce coal quickly wasn't done to simulate natural conditions, so it's results can't be applied to coal being naturally produced.  Where did they say the scientists at Argonne labs were trying to simulate natural conditions?  I never said to abondon all lab research, but you're making unwarranted assumptions to support your claim, and you have no evidence to back them up.  You also ignored the fact that it takes millions of years for enough organic material to accumulate and millions of years for the strata to accumulate over this material before it can turn into coal.  Where in the experiments of Argoone labs did they recreate this?  

I have a video of it being done from the harvesting of the sample to the final test. But what difference would it make?

If you had any guts, you would have given us the name of that video, so we could evaluate it for ourselves.  You continually confuse the issue, I don't refect creationism because I want to, I reject it because it has been proven false.  If you gave us any valid data to support your claims I would consider it and look at it objectively.  but you haven't been able to give us any data, relevant or otherwise.  Your arguments have been completely subjective and have nothing to back them up.

You say lab results are irrelevant so all radiomaetric dating is irrelevant.
Congatuations!


Never said this, you are still a liar!  Lab results are irrelevant?!?!  Show me where I said this!  What I did say is that Argonne labs was not trying to simulate natural processes, they were trying to form coal rapidly.  Show us where I said anything different.  Show us where Argonne labs claims anything different.
Once again, you are trying to twist the facts to support your half assed claim.

"In the lab and in nature are two different things, no comparison."

I'll stand by my statement, you're just spouting nonsense now because you can't deal with the evidence, fine by me, like I said, your ignorance isn't evidence for a young earth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:15 AM on June 20, 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.