Dr W wrote:The reason folks use radiometric dating is because it is the most convenient, reproducible, and widely applicable method available for geological samples. It is considered the Gold Standard in Earth sciences and other independent dating methods often compare their estimates to those of radiometric (isotope ratio) dating.
There are methods that are completely independent of radiometric dating that either confirm the age of the Earth / Solar System at around 4.5 billion years, or can be used to put lower limit (older than) estimates on the age of the Earth. These include:
It's all a conspiracy! The fact they agree proves it, can't you see?
There is this guy in Alabama who has published a paper on his website proving that these figures are all made up - but you know what? He has sent the paper to 50 scientific journals, who have all refused to accept it for publication. Clear evidence that there is a plot to suppress the truth by so-called scientists.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Dr W wrote:The reason folks use radiometric dating is because it is the most convenient, reproducible, and widely applicable method available for geological samples. It is considered the Gold Standard in Earth sciences and other independent dating methods often compare their estimates to those of radiometric (isotope ratio) dating.
There are methods that are completely independent of radiometric dating that either confirm the age of the Earth / Solar System at around 4.5 billion years, or can be used to put lower limit (older than) estimates on the age of the Earth. These include:
It's all a conspiracy! The fact they agree proves it, can't you see?
There is this guy in Alabama who has published a paper on his website proving that these figures are all made up - but you know what? He has sent the paper to 50 scientific journals, who have all refused to accept it for publication. Clear evidence that there is a plot to suppress the truth by so-called scientists.
Well, there's always the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
This well known journal generally prefers papers with irreproducible data rather than purely theoretical work.
Could be worth a try, though.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Whether it ever amounts to anything or not, this theory is fun to read and think about.
What they are essentially claiming is that plate compression / subduction does not match (lags behind) expansion / rifting, on average, over the very long term.
Pretty hard to defend against the kind of data available now.
Still, these guys do not rise (sink) to the level of crackpots, not by a long shot.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
You have indicated that you have a technical background, but it doesn't shine through very well sometimes......
That's nice. You tend to arm wave and reference sites I have not used to form an argument against something I never brought up. One heck of a scientific method you have there. More agenda driven if you ask me.
In the case of plate tectonics it seems to fit some places on the earth but much of the earth does not fit. So if you are saying that plate tectonics is accepted as a default method because we can't think of another then that is a very weak argument.
And as I stated before I am not arguing the young age of the earth. Instead I am arguing that science is not solid enough on the past mechanisms and trace evidence to make the "factual" statements they make. Whether it is plate movement or dating methods their foundation is not as solid as they state. The biggest assumption in all of the work is that the universe has some characteristics that do not change. Like the basic fabric of space. Now I do not know what happened in the past I can only look about me and ponder what I see and try and figure things out by some form of natural logic. But what if there are changes that have occurred in the past which are not happening now. This would change our basic assumptions and throw out our conclusions. You seem OK with ignoring these possibilities. This has been the downfall of science since the dawn of science. It is the overreach and the idea that if we can't imagine it it never happened. Now if you are happy with a uniformitarianism world and universe that is fine. Just state that you have embraced this idea and you refuse to consider any other possibility. Then you and your other scientific friends can all embrace each other and say how smart you are. But be aware that many have fallen on the sword of assumption land in the past. True men of science have rejected the status quo and moved science along. A perfect example of this is Halton Arp who is a brilliant scientist. Who I believe will overturn much of astrophysics in the future. And the work that is being done with a plasma universe is very promising but most in orthodox science reject it on grounds similar to those used by the Catholic church in dealing with Galileo. I stand in the unknown. I make no grand statement that I know what has happened in the past. It seems to me that to make a statement that you know the details of the past enough to eliminate all other possibilities is a position of ignorance of the past and ignorance of the history of science.
Belief in a non-linear past v. self correcting empirical conclusions?
I think you have the short end of the stick FrankTalk.
But hey, write your grant proposal, submit your research to a peer reviewed journal. That's pretty much the way it works.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Modern science seems to be pretty successful at finding ways of understanding the present and the past of the universe using one single theory of the basic laws of physics that allows the same laws to be applied to both the remote past and the present.
Dr. W. gave the example of the range of different dating methods that put the age of the earth and solar system at around 4.5 billion years. If something major had happened to the way the universe worked during that period, then in order to produce the agreement we actually observe, that change would have had to affect the rules governing very different phenomena in ways that quite coincidentally kept the datings in agreement. It seems far more likely that nothing very basic has changed in that period.
Of course if someone wants to imagine that until five minutes ago the universe was a giant Oreo cooky that had persisted for trillions of years, until very recently a deity changed the rules and transformed it into the universe we see today, there is nothing I can do to deprive them of that pleasure. Indeed, they may go on to imagine that it is about to become a Hershey bar next Christmas if they want to. But until you can find some way to show me some way that such imaginings are related to fact in a way that can be tested, you haven't got much useful to say about science.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
You said you wanted to see methods that could be used to independently verify radiometric dating. I provided three such methods, two of which depend on extraterrestrial processes, and provided confirmation for the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. I referenced the papers that described them.
Now you say you have no problem with the age of Earth as determined by mainstream science.
_____________
ETA: Just saw Chap's latest post above and agree.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
You said you wanted to see methods that could be used to independently verify radiometric dating. I provided three such methods, two of which depend on extraterrestrial processes, and provided confirmation for the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. I referenced the papers that described them.
Now you say you have no problem with the age of Earth as determined by mainstream science.
_____________
ETA: Just saw Chap's latest post above and agree.
I have unsuccessfully tried to communicate the importance of independent dating methods a number of times. Since you explained them very well, I hope it might have more success then I have had. I do think frank is at least making small progress, but I doubt nipper will make any moves from his fantasy world. Many LDS actually do accept that there was no Global flood, but maybe a local one. I wonder why people who can have so much evidence put before them have to keep a certain interpretation that has no evidence, and they cannot even know how the text even got to them. Who wrote the flood story? How may this story have been changed over time. We have no documents that even get close to the time frame of the claimed event.
Chap wrote:... until five minutes ago the universe was a giant Oreo cooky ...
Geezes!!! What did I do (again) five minutes ago? Don't tell it to my wife, please!!!
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
