2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2013, 07:15 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
1. Feel free to type it up. I don't do videos.

2. You're proving my point: An atheist makes a specific claim. I challenge that specific claim. The atheist and/or other atheists then try to shift the burden of proof to me to prove a young earth, which I never claimed to be able to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 10:47 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 03:07 PM)alpha male Wrote:  <SNIP> Someone claims that dating methods always give the same results. I show that they don't, and that it's not just a matter of normal uncertainty in measurements.
Truly? Please do tell. I'm dying to see how the technology and/or results are being abused this time.

Perhaps a new thread is in order as this one has precious little to do with radiometric dating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 10:47 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Truly? Please do tell. I'm dying to see how the technology and/or results are being abused this time.
Moon rocks, the KBS tuff - it's in the thread.
Quote:Perhaps a new thread is in order as this one has precious little to do with radiometric dating.
Why bother. I post facts about a specific subject and am called intellectually dishonest for my effort.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 11:11 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 10:47 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Truly? Please do tell. I'm dying to see how the technology and/or results are being abused this time.
Moon rocks, the KBS tuff - it's in the thread.
Quote:Perhaps a new thread is in order as this one has precious little to do with radiometric dating.
Why bother. I post facts about a specific subject and am called intellectually dishonest for my effort.

In all honesty - posting biblical quotes or conjecture or theological theories aren't facts. I realize they seem to be facts to you and your life.... but it's a bit much to expect others to rely on or give weight to your *facts*.....
Hope that makes sense.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 12:00 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  In all honesty - posting biblical quotes or conjecture or theological theories aren't facts. I realize they seem to be facts to you and your life.... but it's a bit much to expect others to rely on or give weight to your *facts*.....
Hope that makes sense.

In this context, he's talking about inconsistent measurements of radiometric dating. Personally, I don't know enough about the subject to weigh in on it, but he wasn't talking about scripture in this case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
This thread is pointless. How can you use science as evidence for someone who refuses to believe in science? It's the same as theists using the bible as fact when atheists refuse to accept the bible as evidence. To say a god manipulated aspects of the universe to fool us is utterly reprehensible, far-reaching, wishful thinking and just plain desperate. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it's sad.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 12:00 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  In all honesty - posting biblical quotes or conjecture or theological theories aren't facts.
That's not what I posted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 01:20 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 12:00 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  In all honesty - posting biblical quotes or conjecture or theological theories aren't facts.
That's not what I posted.

Oh, I'm sorry? What was that? That sounds distinctly like bullshit.

(06-12-2013 03:48 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 03:28 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Yeah. While I find the idea of creationism silly, if someone accepts that there is a God that can create an entire star, I don't see why it would be a stretch for him to also create photons. It's not really a gotcha question. You could ask why he went through all that effort, but the only answer to that is really [mysterious ways].
Actually there is another answer, and it's given in the Bible:
Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.

I.e., the universe is evidence of a creator god. Paul also notes this in Romans 1.

Called it.



(06-12-2013 05:28 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 05:14 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Google is your friend bro. We are not responsible for your lack of education, if you don't know all the different radiometric dating techniques and how they can tell which are more accurate than others go to http://www.google.com go ahead and put that in your favorite menue you will find it is very helpful.
Copout, plain and simple.

If I'm not mistaken, this too smells of hypocritical bullshit.


(06-12-2013 07:10 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 06:52 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  The issue with YEC's will always be that they start with a theological assertion and will only listen to 'science' that supports it. Take away the theological assertion and you have ears and eyes opened to actual science.
Read up on the dating of KNM-ER 1470 and the KBS tuff. Scientists started with an evolutionary assertion and only accepted the 'science' that supported it. That's not a theist or atheist trait, it's a human trait.

Well now, would you look at that? I seem to remember you claiming that's, what did you call it again? A 'copout, plain and simple'? Called it again!



(07-12-2013 06:01 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 12:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They were all billions of years old. Who knows where they were from. Moon "geology" is hardly precise. It sure as hell is not 6000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
What EXACTLY is your science education, and where did you get it ?
Here's a chart showing various ages of moon rocks.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/ages.htm
Note the Sources tab at the bottom if you're interested. Also note the sample number in the first column. There is significant variance within samples using different methods.

That website is woefully out of date, which is why you sound so retarded when you lift arguments from it wholesale. The entire thing reeks of anti-intellectualism and conspiracy theory woo-woo. Changes in dates and information is not a sign of vast plot to hide information that disagrees with some massive global conspiratorial scientific agenda, it's evidence that science is correcting and refining itself as more information is added to the collective pool of knowledge. What both that site, and you yourself, fail to grasp is; science is a self correcting method. As science has collectively gained more information and evidence to better refine it's data and methods, the results have changed over time. Those pushing an anti-science agenda see this and attack it as a weakness, not realizing it is in fact science's greatest strength. The source of those moon rock dates comes from an article published in 1970. Too bad the best you can do is cite a website article from 1998 grasping at straws from almost thirty years earlier.

RidgeNet circa 1998 Wrote:If we make the first assumption, then we have to figure out how much there was. Since scientists don't know what process formed the rock in the first place, we can't possibly know how much uranium and how much lead that process created. Therefore, the accuracy of the computed date depends entirely upon how well we guess the initial concentrations of uranium and lead. There is no more reason to believe that the rock initially contained 20% uranium and 80% lead than there is to believe that the rock initially contained 80% uranium and 20% lead. If you assume an initial concentration of each kind of material, the calculations will yield an age determined entirely by whatever wild guess you make.

If we make the second assumption, the calculation will yield the oldest possible age. This assumption is attractive to people who want to try to justify their belief in an old age of the Earth. The second assumption is a tough one to swallow, though, because one must postulate a natural process that turns hydrogen and helium into iron, oxygen, nickel, carbon, gold, copper and uranium, but not lead. What is there about lead which would make it harder to produce than nickel or copper? Nothing. So the imaginary process that creates uranium must not produce lead for some unexplained reason. This hardly seems like solid, scientific reasoning.

This sounds good, especially when it already agrees with your presupposition and you're not worried about actually challenging your preconceptions. If you were however intellectually honest, and not a ignorant shill, you could find answers to these questions.

HyperPhysics circa 2013 Wrote:Uranium-Lead Dating

Ages determined by radioactive decay are always subject to assumptions about original concentrations of the isotopes. The natural radioactive series which involve lead as a daughter element do offer a mechanism to test the assumptions. Common lead contains a mixture of four isotopes. Lead 204, which is not produced by radioactive decay provides a measure of what was "original" lead. It is observed that for most minerals, the proportions of the lead isotopes is very nearly constant, so the lead-204 can be used to project the original quantities of lead-206 and lead-207. (Lead-208 is the final stable product of the Thorium series, so is not used in uranium-lead dating.) The two uranium-lead dates obtained from U-235 and U-238 have different half-lives, so if the date obtained from the two decays are in agreement, this adds confidence to the date. They are not always the same, so some uncertainties arise in these processes.

There are powerful rationales for using lead isotopes as indicative of concentrations at the point when the lead-containing mineral was in the molten state. Since the isotopes of lead are chemically identical, any processes that brought lead into the mineral would be completely indiscriminate about which isotope was brought in. The forming mineral will incorporate lead-204, lead-206 and lead-207 at the ratio at which they are found at that location at the time of formation. Any departure from the original relative concentrations of lead-206 and lead-207 relative to lead-204 could then be attributed to radioactive decay.

Making use of the decay constants of both 238U and 235U, plus the fact that the consistent isotopic ratio of 238U/235U = 137.88 is found, Holmes and Houtermans developed a system to use the ratios of the lead isotopes to produce Pb-Pb isochrons for dating minerals. This approach is generally considered to be the most precise for determining the age of the Earth.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...lkroc.html



(08-12-2013 06:41 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 03:22 PM)Crulax Wrote:  Could you please link the articles to support your claim.
I already provided a link on the moon rocks. Here's a very brief one on KNM-Er 1470 (i.e. the KBS tuff):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html
Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended.

The moral of the story: If the radiometric date disagrees with the presumed evolutionary relationships, keep testing until you get a date you like!


Wikipedia Wrote:The fossil KNM-ER 1470 was the center of much debate concerning its species. The skull was at first incorrectly dated at nearly three million years old, predating the Homo habilis species. Since then, the estimate has been corrected to 1.9 million years, but the differences in this skull, when compared to others of the Homo habilis species, are said to be too pronounced, leading to the presumption of a Homo rudolfensis species, contemporary with Homo habilis. It is not certain whether H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species of Homo, or whether H. habilis was, or whether some third species, yet undiscovered, was ancestral to the later Homo line.



(09-12-2013 11:20 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time. Deal with it.
Comets don't.

CJLR is speaking in hyperbole. Not all comets can be dated to billions of years, however they are all far older than a 6000 year old solar system proposed by biblical creationists. We can determine this with math and physics, no radioactive dating required. What they do not do is disprove a billion year old solar system or prove a thousand year old solar system.







(09-12-2013 03:07 PM)alpha male Wrote:  I would have let the thread drop some time ago, except for the charges of intellectual dishonesty. I believe I've been reasonable throughout. Someone claims that dating methods always give the same results. I show that they don't, and that it's not just a matter of normal uncertainty in measurements. Now, if those cases don't bother someone and they still accept radiometric dating, that's their choice. It doesn't bother me. But don't say I'm dishonest because I'm skeptical.

The claims on your lack of intellectual honesty are unfounded in a way. Since I suppose being 'intellectually dishonest' requires having an actual intellect, and I'm not sure you can even claim that.



(13-12-2013 07:15 AM)alpha male Wrote:  1. Feel free to type it up. I don't do videos.

2. You're proving my point: An atheist makes a specific claim. I challenge that specific claim. The atheist and/or other atheists then try to shift the burden of proof to me to prove a young earth, which I never claimed to be able to do.

1. Of course you don't, that would be too fucking easy. Short version; simple Newtonian mechanics shows that the solar system is far older than 6000 years.

2. You're a purposely ignorant shill of a troll.


(07-12-2013 12:31 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
Quote: I'm not impressed by edumucation. You know what they say about degrees:

BS - Bull shit
MS - More shit
PhD - Piled higher and deeper

Wow.

I take back everything I said. You're trolling.

Right you are KC, right you are. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-12-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 07:15 AM)alpha male Wrote:  2. You're proving my point: An atheist makes a specific claim. I challenge that specific claim. The atheist and/or other atheists then try to shift the burden of proof to me to prove a young earth, which I never claimed to be able to do.

It's likewise bad form to challenge specific claims as they are raised, ignore the provided substantiation, and then proceed to substitute nothing. So there's that.

...

All the evidence fits together to form a coherent picture of reality. One cannot simply dispute part of it. The same genetic evidence which suggests evolution by means of natural selection arising from common ancestry is the exact same genetic material which means you don't starve to death. And so on.

Tree rings within historically recorded timeframes are highly reliable means of determining dates. Ice cores within historically recorded timeframes are highly reliable means of determining dates. Either may then be used (having already been calibrated) to form relative judgements against like evidence. This process repeats in innumerable ways.

The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever. Impossible to reconcile with anything less than billions of years. Radiometric dating - as analogised above, numerous interrelated patterns of evidence, impossible to reconcile with anything less than billiosn of years. Geological history. Impossible to reconcile with anything less than billions of years. Cosmological history. The mechanics of all known solar system bodies are impossible to reconcile with anything less than billions of years. Et cetera, until one has covered the entire body of modern knowledge.

Well - that fraction of it that isn't willfully ignored by the pants on head retarded.

The alternatives are to say it is all a perfect divine coincidence (omphalic hypothesis - which is, again, the single most stunningly pointless evasion ever) OR to say it is all a REPTILOID COMMIE NAZI OBAMACARE CONSPIRACY.

Your call.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
13-12-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 11:11 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 10:47 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Truly? Please do tell. I'm dying to see how the technology and/or results are being abused this time.
Moon rocks, the KBS tuff - it's in the thread.
I'm sure that it is lurking somewhere in the 15 pages and growing list of posts. If you could be a little more specific so that I don't misrepresent you...???

Quote:
Quote:Perhaps a new thread is in order as this one has precious little to do with radiometric dating.
Why bother. I post facts about a specific subject and am called intellectually dishonest for my effort.
Because it's a different topic. And it isn't even difficult to be intellectually dishonest using facts. Politicians do it all the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: