My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_Franktalk]

Spotlight,

It seems to me that you sure are waving your arms around. Your comments do not come close to responding to what I am asking for. This is expected and typical.

If you do not have an answer just say so. I really don't like this tactic of yours. If you don't have an answer then you try and baffle with ........

I find it interesting how your posts are larger and more numerous when you are least able to respond to a question.

I will state this again. I don't care if radiometric dating is accurate or not. My only issue is the lack of separate verification. And I guess it does not concern you that so many assumptions are being made using radioactive decay. It does bother me. I guess of the two of us I happen to be curious and you are not. So be it.

[Guest]

Oh that's nice! In other words, the more abundant and detailed the confirming evidence provided, the more suspect the provider of that evidence and his conclusions, and the more inclined you are to prefer alternate conclusions with little or no evidentiary support. Is that right?

[_spotlight]

It seems to me that you sure are waving your arms around. Your comments do not come close to responding to what I am asking for. This is expected and typical.

Oh really? Waving arms is a reference to an attempt to prove something without any evidence. What evidence did I miss sharing with you? Radioactivity is a basic staple of physics. You don't get to assert that decay rates can change without anything to back it up. That would be arm waving Frank.

If you do not have an answer just say so. I really don't like this tactic of yours. If you don't have an answer then you try and baffle with ........

An answer to what Frank? Verification using erosion rates? That's nonsense Frank.

I find it interesting how your posts are larger and more numerous when you are least able to respond to a question.

I am posting all of the various reasons why decay rates are stable Frank. Is it my fault there is a lot of material in support of this?

I will state this again. I don't care if radiometric dating is accurate or not. My only issue is the lack of separate verification.

Did you bother to read the link I left in my last post?
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=6288

I guess like subbie you don't understand the math behind calculating a half life? I thought you said you took the math for scientists and engineers. If you have and you review it as you state you'd know that the half life can be calculated from the decay rate alone which can be directly measured without any need for a separate verification of anything. An atom cannot change it's decay rate any more than an atom can change its mass or defy the law of gravity.

And I guess it does not concern you that so many assumptions are being made using radioactive decay.

The assumption that matter obeys the laws of physics?
Have you heard of the isochron method? That covers your assumptions Frank, being I assume (since you haven't spelled anything out - another reason for providing you with numerous posts) the initial parent daughter ratios. Those can be derived from the plot. Also if the data are from a bad sample (due to a mixture from various ages) the plot will reveal that and the data will not fall on a straight line but will be scattered.

It does bother me. I guess of the two of us I happen to be curious and you are not. So be it.

You are so full of it Frank. I got my degree in nuclear physics being at the time a YEC myself in order to find out where science had it wrong. It was a painful process to discover they were right and YEC was wrong. So I guess my curiosity beats yours Frank.

[_spotlight]

Oh that's nice! In other words, the more abundant and detailed the confirming evidence, the less reliable the conclusions based on it, and the more inclined you are to prefer alternate conclusions that have little or no supporting evidence. Is that right?

Franktalk operates on anti-logic.

[_Gunnar]

Obviously and becoming ever more obvious!

[_Themis]

You make a good point but when we look at a tree that is a few thousand years old it does not equate to billions of years.

Few thousand was just an example. Tree ring data help to confirm the accuracy of radio carbon dating back over 10k years. There is a lot of research that has gone into this as well as other ways to verify how accurate or inaccurate dating systems are. You might notice if you read scientific materiel that accuracy is very important and is usually measured in mathematical ways.

When we look at radioactive decay we assume that rates have not changed.

You may assume that, but scientists do not. They try to verify and prove wrong any dating systems. They are interested in finding the truth. There is a lot of literature, but it takes time for one to get into the real details of how they come to their conclusions, which are never absolute. Do you have evidence to show they are wrong? I have read a number of papers in the past in which some time is devoted to why or why they may not feel certain dating techniques should be considered accurate. They are quite familiar with conditions that will affect results.

I would think science would enjoy the challenge to remove that assumption and actually show a verification of that assumption.

They do and they do work to prove or show a dating technique is accurate or not. Finding other methods of dating to verify them is important and has been done. I showed this with just one example of radio carbon dating ans tree ring. Others are magnetic reversals and radiometric dating of potassium. You can also take a look at the distance of rock from the mid-Atlantic ridge and then take the average yearly movement to get an age when this rock was probably formed. If it has a similar date to radiometric dating is this a fantastic way to verify both methods since they are completely independent?

Why is it that I am asking for verification and science has not done it already? Does this bother you?

No because you haven't spent the time to understand the details of how it works and what they have done to consider how accurate certain dating methods should be considered. They are some basic sites that will start you on the way.

[_Maksutov]

Oh that's nice! In other words, the more abundant and detailed the confirming evidence, the less reliable the conclusions based on it, and the more inclined you are to prefer alternate conclusions that have little or no supporting evidence. Is that right?

Franktalk operates on anti-logic.

I predict his response will involve "parroting", "stories" and "paradigms".

[_SteelHead]

Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants.

Like how nuclear weapon explosions can completely deviate the calculation made by someone a few millennium in the future?

According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives...

This accuracy has no validation...science has no artifact that is "known" to be 25k years old or even 1m years old....
what science has, with regards to long term chronologies, are assumptions based on short-term chronologies.
Show me something that was known to be 10k years old that this form of "science" has then confirmed by isotope measurement.

Points to a star in the sky known by measurement to be 25k+ light years away. The light we are seeing is known to be 25k+ years old.

Easy peasy

[_Franktalk]

No because you haven't spent the time to understand the details of how it works and what they have done to consider how accurate certain dating methods should be considered. They are some basic sites that will start you on the way.

Actually I am not the one stuck in a paradigm.

[_spotlight]

Actually I am not the one stuck in a paradigm.

Franktalk would like to change the criteria for establishing reality from evidence and facts with oversight by the entire community of the best and brightest to an inward journey over which no one can bring any criticism. He takes entitlement to a whole new level.