L.O.L. I saw that this thread had exploded to over 100 replies. I then asked myself, “Self, what could have caused so much buzz?” I then reread the title. 298 million years…and there it is.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s funny and hypocritical how the scoffing crowd flies out of their kennels with slobber all a-drippin’ and fangs bared when much of their very ethos is founded on assumptions - and yet they supposedly abhor assumptions. Funny deal.[/quote]
What’s HILARIOUS is how nearly every major scientific body that deals with historical study utilizes these methods to one degree or another… and yet you and your buddies on the admittedly-biased scientific periphery are asking us to discuss why this widely accepted method isn’t complete shit.
Given the huge prevalence of these methods in numerous fields of study, the burden of proof is on YOU to show why they can’t be trusted to discern between 300 million and 6,000 years.
If your only arguments stem from pro-YEC studies published in exclusively pro-YEC “scientific” journals… then LOL.
It isn’t perfect. It IS based on assumptions (this is where you quote only this as your ‘checkmate’ moment, right?), but these assumptions are based on decades of research in numerous scientific disciplines. YOUR assumptions are based on fringe scientific theories that are NOT accepted by any reputable field of study. YOUR assumptions involve starting with the INFALLIBLE conclusion and butchering every scientific field of study to an unrecognizable state until it fits into the desperate little niche your “researchers” have carved for themselves in the scientific community… to the point where pro-Creationism schools are handing out PhDs to give their side credibility.
Again – your ultimate contention is that 97%+ of biologists, geneticists, chemists, archaeologists, taxonomists, geologists, cosmologists, astronomists, palentologists (plus numerous other -ists), PLUS every editor for EVERY major scientific journal, who think the YEC-movement is based on junk science are either ALL misinterpreting the information OR they are ALL in on a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep the truth of God from the public out of intellectual vanity and/or greed.
Holy Christ on a cross, Batman.
You say you make no claims in this thread, but the level of condescension you exhibit to others and insulting manner in which you demand everyone cater to your intellectual blind spot say otherwise.
Yes – my request for articles from reputable scientific journals IS relevant… because if the only scientific information you can scrounge up to defend your “healthy skepticism” of dating methods (that they REGULARLY and CONSISTENTLY mistake 6,000 year old artifacts for 200+ million year old ones) is found ONLY in pro-YEC journals that have a Statement of Faith that says outright that NO evidence that disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis is CORRECT… then the discussion truly is not worth my time.
You argue that assumptions are being made… maybe so, but these scientific assumptions are based on SCIENCE. Your scientific assumptions are rooted in RELIGION.
You have written before that you can’t pick and choose what parts of the Bible you believe in, and that if one part is wrong there is no way of telling WHAT ELSE is wrong… so it must be an all-or-nothing belief system.
You try to offset this overt bias of yours with the assertion that if YOUR side is biased, then everyone else in the world must be, too… to the point where they deliberately and purposefully misconduct, misinterpret and misapply research on a consistent, global, near-unanimous scale.
You’re gonna have to tryharder than that, push.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
I think it’s the 300 smashmillion year old earth thing.[/quote]
I see.
So the God scoffers are absolutely convinced, i.e., have faith, that dating systems are infallible, huh?[/quote]
Who has said that dating systems are infallible? Of course they are fallible and when better and more accurate methods are determined, incorrect data are discarded. If you have identified any valid evidence regarding a systemic flaw in the measurement of radioactive decay then please let me know. If you are going to argue that we cannot know that decay rates have always been constant, spare me. Every semester in my Nuclear Physics class I get several kids from the school’s Christian Alliance Club who sign up just to try to debate me on this. Radioactive decay is measurable and quantifiable and verifiable. There is a vast body of evidence to support it. If you have verifiable evidence that any half life of any isotope has ever changed then please let me know and I will reimburse the researcher the cost of his experiments even if it takes my entire annual budget as well as make it my life’s work to stop the use of radioactive dating methods. In every protocol that I know of, and I know all of them since Nuclear Physics is my area of research, there are errors to be accounted for. Dating samples from around 100-500 million years ago is pretty hard to do due to the isotopes used in most modern dating methods. I did not do the dating on the samples from this find (which I am actually a little offended about for various reasons that are not important to this discussion) so I do not know the exact methods used in coming up with the date here, since that would depend on what elements were present in the materials found at the site. I would bet it was a combination of Samarium-neodymium, Rhenium-osmium, Uranium-lead, and up to a dozen other methods. Once the dating methods to be used are identified, the first step is to use isotope ratio mass spectrometry to identify and remove any parent/daughter isotopes that are not part of the original sample (there are chemical ways of identifying these.) If you have a basic (meaning undergraduate level) of understanding of chemistry and nuclear physics as well as a working knowledge of advanced calculus and differential equations I can explain them to you but I am trying to keep this simple. Once that is done, the actual dating is done and possible errors are identified and accounted for. In most samples from this era, the margin of error is fairly large. The results of each dating method are compared and if there exists any major discrepancies, the dating is done over again from the start. If the different methods agree to within the margin of error, the process is repeated at other institutions by different scientists in order to verify the findings. The best I have seen had a margin of error of about 17%. I have seen some as high as 40%.
[quote]anatonym wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s funny and hypocritical how the scoffing crowd flies out of their kennels with slobber all a-drippin’ and fangs bared when much of their very ethos is founded on assumptions - and yet they supposedly abhor assumptions. Funny deal.[/quote]
What’s HILARIOUS is how nearly every major scientific body that deals with historical study utilizes these methods to one degree or another… and yet you and your buddies on the admittedly-biased scientific periphery are asking us to discuss why this widely accepted method isn’t complete shit.
Given the huge prevalence of these methods in numerous fields of study, the burden of proof is on YOU to show why they can’t be trusted to discern between 300 million and 6,000 years.
If your only arguments stem from pro-YEC studies published in exclusively pro-YEC “scientific” journals… then LOL.
It isn’t perfect. It IS based on assumptions (this is where you quote only this as your ‘checkmate’ moment, right?), but these assumptions are based on decades of research in numerous scientific disciplines. YOUR assumptions are based on fringe scientific theories that are NOT accepted by any reputable field of study. YOUR assumptions involve starting with the INFALLIBLE conclusion and butchering every scientific field of study to an unrecognizable state until it fits into the desperate little niche your “researchers” have carved for themselves in the scientific community.
Again – your ultimate contention is that 97%+ of biologists, geneticists, chemists, archaeologists, taxonomists, geologists, cosmologists, astronomists, palentologists (plus numerous other -ists), PLUS every editor for EVERY major scientific journal, who think the YEC-movement is based on junk science are either ALL misinterpreting the information OR they are ALL in on a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep the truth of God from the public out of intellectual vanity and/or greed.
Holy Christ on a cross, Batman.[/quote]
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
nuclear physics stuff [/quote]
Slow clap for you too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FWIW, this find sounds like a creationists’ dream. It, the find, is all about catastrophism and catastrophism is part and parcel of creationism.[/quote]
I know, right?
I’ve always said that the Achilles’ heel of the evolutionary theory is that it leaves no room for any sort of natural disaster.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You are quite the fervent defender of your faith, I will give you that.[/quote]
You are a clown desperately clinging to the shredded remnants of a theory gone bust because your entire system of belief hinges on the literal interpretation and complete infallibility of your sacred tome.
You wanted to discuss dating methods? Meet Dr. Matt.
I noticed you are much more timid around people who are CLEARLY smarter than you in this area, but please feel free to educate him as to why a large portion of his education is a sham. I mean, it shouldn’t be too hard for an independent thinker like you, right? Don’t bother to skimp on the chemistry, nuclear physics, advanced calculus and differential equations, either… I took enough math and chemistry during my Bachelor’s and Master’s education to be able to follow along at least a LITTLE bit.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sitting here trying to figure out what it is about this article that causes the God scoffers to come roaring out of their lairs with such velocity.[/quote]
You must have missed the comments on the original link. This was mentioned in one of the first posts.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, why did you change your screen name?[/quote]
I was hoping to sidestep the post delay on my other account; it’s frustrating when you write something and the discussion moves several pages ahead before it pops up… it worked last night but I guess they’re on to me.
[quote]Christine wrote:
You must have missed the comments on the original link. This was mentioned in one of the first posts.[/quote]
This.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m still chuckling at how several of the ones whose names I listed ran like scalded dogs from this thread. Just bold enough to do the initial drive-by shooting but not quite bold enough to stick around for the knife fight.
Ha! Isn’t life awesome?[/quote]
Not running. Just know that you are never wrong.