Occrider, I've been researching some articles and theories regarding "radioactive isotope dating" which you illustrated to me the other day.

I was wondering what you thought about these two statements regarding it:

quote:

This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating. First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be. Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Just wanted to move this discussion out of the other thread. This is mainly directed at my new buddies Opus and occrider - but anyone that wishes to, please join in on our debate. Please keep it civil and respectful - many people do care about this topic and like me, they enjoy discussing it and learning how other people think. Without further ado... I have a few questions! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Opus, I respect your outlook that science and religion should not be together. I hope this question doesn't infringe that! As "evolutionists" - or someone that believes the earth is older than 6,000 years - What would you say the "strongest" proof for this is? Scientifically, of course.

Name a scientific field of study - evolutionary biology, cell and molecular biology, paleontology, ecology, marine biology, genetics, astrophysics, geology, geography, etc. etc.

I can think of not one field that could holds evidence that points toward a "young earth". I think the burden is not on science, but on the young earth creationist (YEC) to demonstrate a young earth.

Keep in mind that it was creationists over 150 yrs. ago that shot down the idea of a young earth - once they realized that flood theory was bogus.

quote:

Counterpoint - among my limited "creation" research throughout my life, I've learned that the oldest reef is about 4300 years old and the oldest tree on earth is about 4200 years old. Do you believe this is just a coincidence or actual evidence of a "pro-flood" theory?

When reading Hovind's arguments like this, you really must ask yourself: how does the age of a particular object "prove" anything about the age of the earth in general? How does that particular object relate at all to the age of the earth?

Answer: it says nothing whatsoever about the age of the earth. Furthermore, a number coral reefs are much, much older than a few thousand years.

Look, you're taking arguments right out of Hovind's playbook. Rather than you ask them one at a time, I suggest you read these well-written refutations of Hovind's ridiculous arguments:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hov...wgood-yea2.html

Every single YEC argument I've run across only demonstrates a sincere lack of knowledge about evolutionary processes. In no way am I trying to knock your intelligence, but I will tell you that YEC folks have either deliberately misled or blatantly ignored based scientific tenets altogether. They are truly a dying breed, simply because their arguments have moved from the "shaky ground" arena into the flat-out ridiculous stage.

It is this reason why most creationists have abandoned these YEC arguments and moved towards questionable areas like Intelligent Design. The logic, however, is no less flawed in this arena once it's broken down, but it holds more support for those desperately wanting to cling on to the "goddidit!" line for everything.

I would highly suggest that you learn a bit more about evolutionary processes on your own, if you are truly interested. You will find that a little bit of reading and cognitive questioning will answer/debunk many of those creationist questions you may have. One site that may be of interest to you is this one:

http://www.talkorigins.org

HTH,

Opus1

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Look, you're taking arguments right out of Hovind's playbook. Rather than you ask them one at a time, I suggest you read these well-written refutations of Hovind's ridiculous arguments: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hov...wgood-yea2.html

I didn't know that was out of his "playbook" - I've seen a couple of his seminars (on video) - but I haven't seen all of him. The issue was brought up in one of my classes. (Philosophical Theology)

From what I've read (and heard about him) he's a bit out there sometimes on his theories. I'll try to refrain from quoting him ever again.

quote:

Every single YEC argument I've run across only demonstrates a sincere lack of knowledge about evolutionary processes. In no way am I trying to knock your intelligence, but I will tell you that YEC folks have either deliberately misled or blatantly ignored based scientific tenets altogether. They are truly a dying breed, simply because their arguments have moved from the "shaky ground" arena into the flat-out ridiculous stage.

I do thank you for not calling me an idiot

You tell me to go read something. I've been to every major pro-creation and pro-evolution site there is. I am quite well versed on most of the evolution and creation theories. Stating that: Would you agree with the following statement?:

"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

I am not here to discuss many things that much smarter people than me have already discussed in *great* length.

What I am trying to do is find out what other people think, why they think it - and - see if it is I who in fact is naive, or do people really turn a blind eye to looking at the "facts" with a different perspective. No offense, but I do see that here. I have looked at the world as you would (or similiar) - and I've looked at it how I do now. Can you say that you've looked at the world from a creationists point of view?

quote:

They are truly a dying breed, simply because their arguments have moved from the "shaky ground" arena into the flat-out ridiculous stage.

I wouldn't call them ridiculous by any means. However, I think most "creationists" consider the thought of evolution just as flat-out ridiculous. One group has to be wrong, don't they? Meaning a lot of people on this world are pretty crazy.

quote:

It is this reason why most creationists have abandoned these YEC arguments and moved towards questionable areas like Intelligent Design. The logic, however, is no less flawed in this arena once it's broken down, but it holds more support for those desperately wanting to cling on to the "goddidit!" line for everything.

I wasn't aware "most" creationists have abandoned all our beliefs. I am aware of the Intelligent Design theory, and I do like it - however - I also hate using the cop out "Goddidit!" for as much as possible. It's the eternal "we're right" answer, but I have to think there was meaning and logic (even in a divine sense) of everything that is today.

So, respectfully, I do appreciate your thinking of me and offering me many links to read (which I did) - and I'm not flat out ignoring their "debunking" - but you will have to forgive me for looking at everything with a different presuppositions.

What about Uranium-Lead dating?

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

quote:

When reading Hovind's arguments like this, you really must ask yourself: how does the age of a particular object "prove" anything about the age of the earth in general? How does that particular object relate at all to the age of the earth? Answer: it says nothing whatsoever about the age of the earth. Furthermore, a number coral reefs are much, much older than a few thousand years.

and a rock thats dated falsely doesnt mean anything whatsoever about the age of the earth.

---------

what kind of climactic events would happen if there was a world-wide flood of such huge proportions that the entire earth was covered. thats how i think one Ice Age could have come about. but not 5.

the so-called Missing Link "Lucy" was actually animal bones scattered about that were found in africa.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Occrider, I've been researching some articles and theories regarding "radioactive isotope dating" which you illustrated to me the other day. I was wondering what you thought about these two statements regarding it: This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating. First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be. Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.

Nearly every college library in the country have a database of periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement. In the event that a result does not match, they don't simply throw it away and shrug their shoulders until they get a value they want, they research the reason WHY there is a discrepancy in the date. Therefore, contamination errors as in the case of Potassium-Argon dating, or the dating of sea mollusks are scientifically researched and disseminated to other scientists so they know to avoid making a similar contamination error. Once again, scientists employ not one but SEVERAL dating methods on the same object and the results are consistent among all methods. If radio-dating was flawed, we would see discrepancies all the time. But look up some results yourself ...

___________________
Retro ...

i heard 'Lucy' was a highly evolved creationist?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil "The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

I'm afraid you're going to have to be a little bit more specific with respect to this argument. Saying that the reason why facts are interpreted differentely between creationists and evolutionists is because they enter the argument with different presuppositions is somewhat like saying "humans are inherentely biased, therefore there are no such things as facts because arguments put forth as facts by humans are inherentely biased." Now that's clearly false unless you are are attempting to discuss such a thing philosophically. Therefore one must provide examples of such instances that can be proven or disproven. But to the best of my knowledge, no instance of such a thing (that hasn't been responded to) exists.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil As "evolutionists" - or someone that believes the earth is older than 6,000 years - What would you say the "strongest" proof for this is? Scientifically, of course. Counterpoint - among my limited "creation" research throughout my life, I've learned that the oldest reef is about 4300 years old and the oldest tree on earth is about 4200 years old. Do you believe this is just a coincidence or actual evidence of a "pro-flood" theory? Looking forward to hearing from you guys - Cheers!

You seem to be focusing on the age of the Earth, as opposed to the age of the entire universe. If it is just the Earth that you are talking about, then as has been mentioned, radiometric dating is the strongest evidence for an old Earth. But if you think that the whole universe was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago, then there is the equally damning evidence of visible light from distant galaxies.

See, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, then we should only be able to see light from stars that are 6,000 light years away. But we don't. Back in 1987, scientists witnessed a star going supernova; it exploded and now doesn't exist. This star was over a 170,000 light years away. That means the star actually exploded 170,000 years ago, and it took the light that long to get here. But if the universe is only several thousand years old, then that star never existed and the supernova never actually happened. Basically, the star and explosion would just be an illusion created by God.. light portraying an event that never actually happened.


richard

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit You seem to be focusing on the age of the Earth, as opposed to the age of the entire universe. If it is just the Earth that you are talking about, then as has been mentioned, radiometric dating is the strongest evidence for an old Earth. But if you think that the whole universe was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago, then there is the equally damning evidence of visible light from distant galaxies. See, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, then we should only be able to see light from stars that are 6,000 light years away. But we don't. Back in 1987, scientists witnessed a star going supernova; it exploded and now doesn't exist. This star was over a 170,000 light years away. That means the star actually exploded 170,000 years ago, and it took the light that long to get here. But if the universe is only several thousand years old, then that star never existed and the supernova never actually happened. Basically, the star and explosion would just be an illusion created by God.. light portraying an event that never actually happened. richard

Whilst we're on the topic of space ...

quote:

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes [Nomoto et al. 1997; Thielemann et al. 1998]. These isotopes produce gamma rays whose frequencies and fading rates are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light years away [Knodlseder 2000]. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is 60 million light years away [Prantzos 1999], and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light years away [Perlmutter et al. 1998].

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: and a rock thats dated falsely doesnt mean anything whatsoever about the age of the earth.

The correlation of dating methods, which is applied today, eliminates these errors greatly. The probability of error through correlation is virtually nill.

Here's a great article on dating methodology and those typical creationist arguments against them:

http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/rad_dat.html#Error

---------

quote:

what kind of climactic events would happen if there was a world-wide flood of such huge proportions that the entire earth was covered. thats how i think one Ice Age could have come about. but not 5.

This is a confusing statement. Please clarify.

quote:

the so-called Missing Link "Lucy" was actually animal bones scattered about that were found in africa.

Oh yeah, I've heard this one a dozen times too. Why are these arguments so incredibly dated? (that's a rhetorical question, btw).

There have been two primary arguments against the Lucy discovery. The first is that Lucy's knee joint was found so far away from the rest of her other remains. That might sound appealing, if it was actually her knee joint:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

The second creationist argument is that Australopithecines was more apelike and not bipedal. Unfortunately this is an old argument from the 1950's that was easily discounted, but unfortunately gets regurgitated by some creationists over and over. Again, obvious distortions, misrepresentations, quote minings, and a plain lack of knowledge or understanding of paleontology:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...