Point still stands – you made an untrue claim about evolutionists being unwilling to discuss evidence.
Are you following Alate_One’s Biologos thread in the religion forum of TOL?
Real Science Radio: Deep Wells--Deep Time? 14c There Too?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Are you following Alate_One’s Biologos thread in the religion forum of TOL?
And here you are: not discussing evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong any time you like. :thumb:
I already did on your claim about evolutionists and evidence.
Evolution needs an old earth. The Christian Lord Kelvin defended an age of several million years for the earth. Do you disagree with him?
Evolutionists love to talk airily about evidence as if they have presented a compelling case for acceptance of their ideas.
:yawn:
I take it that is the sum of your answer to how old the earth is according to Lord Kelvin.
6days
New member
Essentially you are arguing for consensus science. (similar to the pope in Galileo's day). Bob is sharing the interpretation of evidence that a smaller group of scientists are making. (geologists, astrophysicists, biologists, geneticists, nuclear physicists,etc)
BTW..... Wasn't the issue about carbon14 dating, and not radiometric?
Evolutionists love to talk about anything but the topic.
Isn't C14 an isotope of C12 and therefore isn't carbon dating a radiometric method of dating?
So the question remains, are all methods of radiometric dating thrown out by YECers? What about dates within the last 6K years, are they OK and all else not??
6days
New member
Radiometric dating and carbon-14 dating are based on sound science. There can be problems which I think we would both agree with such as leaching. But, the biggest problem is opposing worldviews and the assumptions they make. Biblical creationists assume that God created daughter elements. Unbelievers think that daughter element always and only result from decay.Jukia said:
Do you accept that the decay rate of DNA is based on sound science? Do you accept that carbon 14 dating is based on sound science when results contradict your beliefs? (C14 in coal, diamonds and soft ino tissue)
gcthomas
New member
Sound, but it is not foundational, fundamental science since it is based on a series of assumptions about conditions of burial, so large uncertainties exist. Still, no DNA find has been confirmed* in dinosaur fossils yet, so no issue here. The oldest DNA I have heard about is only a few hundred thousand years old and from preserved, not fossilised, remains. (* And confirmation is a fundamental part of science, before you complain.)
C-14 can be formed in different ways. Atmospheric production of C-14 dominates in plants that take in atmospheric CO2, whilst nuclear radiation production dominates in stuff that has been buried a long time (coal/diamonds). The science is clear, but you have rejected it for want of some hard thinking.
So radiometric dating is based on sound science EXCEPT when it conflicts with your literal interpretation of Genesis.
All sound scientific radiometric dates earlier than about 6000 years are OK.
All sound scientific radiometric dates older than about 6000 years have been created by your god.
I think there are a number of papers that deal with the diamond and coal issues. If you had any real interest you could find them.
Soft tissue would seem to have no real relationship to radiometric dating. And yes, paleontologists were surprised. Scientists get surprised all the time and love it. Sort of like the surprise when scientists realized that the earth revolved around the sun. When Einstein combined space and time etc.
All sound scientific radiometric dates earlier than about 6000 years are OK.
All sound scientific radiometric dates older than about 6000 years have been created by your god.
I think there are a number of papers that deal with the diamond and coal issues. If you had any real interest you could find them.
Soft tissue would seem to have no real relationship to radiometric dating. And yes, paleontologists were surprised. Scientists get surprised all the time and love it. Sort of like the surprise when scientists realized that the earth revolved around the sun. When Einstein combined space and time etc.
gcthomas
New member
Radiometric dating is a very contingent process, that works when specific conditions are satisfied, but not otherwise. Taking carbon samples outside of those specific situations is pointless because you can't get a reliable date in those cases. Pretending you can may satisfy those such as you with an anti-science bent, but it is not real science, and those are not real carbon datings.
My objection was to your initial phrasing:
Your most recent comment to me about Bob is a more accurate claim:
As your comment implies, Bob is not coming from a position of knowing much about C14, but rather he is parroting what has scavenged from a small group of “scientists” who have a vested interest in defending a fundamentalist religious view from those parts of secular science that they feel threatens their dogma. Whether they are well-qualified scientists or not, at the outset they have a primary allegiance to defending a narrow religious stance. And they have an abysmal record of showing their fringe ideas meet the criteria that secular science asks of published papers in secular scientific journals.
Galileo came under attack for offending entrenched religious ideas far more than for opposing the prevailing science of his day. My siding with mainstream science is not because I feel safe with lots of company, but because in mainstream science I can walk into a lab with my Hindu co-worker and our Catholic data analyst and his Moslem assistant and we all leave our religious preconceptions at the door.
You think C14 decay is not a form of radiometric decay?
One Eyed Jack
New member
The dating method isn't like the others in that you're not comparing parent-daughter ratios. You're comparing C14 in the sample to C14 in the atmosphere. You're not measuring any actual decay -- you're extrapolating the amount of decay based on this comparison. Maybe that's why 6days is differentiating carbon dating from the other methods.
Jukia asked:
Note that a “yes” answer is probably unpalatable to a whole lot of local folks, including Bob Enyart, Stripe, etc.
6 replied:
I don’t see a very clear answer to Jukia’s question, so let me pin it down a bit. If a set of biological samples from a site are not suspected of significant contamination, and they all give C14 dates in about the 12,000 year old range, would you admit that 12,000 year figure as likely correct? 12,000 years is just a bit over two C14 half-lives, and well within the time limits that C14 is routinely used for and depended on.
Note that a “yes” answer is probably unpalatable to a whole lot of local folks, including Bob Enyart, Stripe, etc.
Nope. The evolutionists here parrot what they scavenge from a small group of “scientists” who have a vested interest in defending an extremist religious view from those parts of science that they feel threaten their dogma. Whether they are well-qualified scientists or not, at the outset they have a primary allegiance to defending a narrow religious stance. And they have an abysmal record of showing their ideas meet the criteria that science asks of rational reasons for accepting them.
Except for your shared evolutionism.
Only if you can show what the ratios were at the time the organism died.
If you were seriously responding to my post then I would do likewise. But I am not interested in playing your semantic games instead of the rational discussion you often pretend you want.
Any time you want to get started on that rational contribution is fine by me. :up:
Until then, your bigoted ranting is fully answered by accusing evolutionists of everything you hurl at creationists.
qed