Evolution and The Age Of The Earth

[Ringel05]

No I'm not a geologist, Biology, Psychology, History and Cultural Anthropology, so obviously some of what I was questioning I had not seen the recent studies, but you also haven't shown the science behind your claims. As for your last response you again made incorrect assumptions, did I kick a sacred cow to deserve such derision..........? Must have.......
I'm talking empirical, show me the empirical, it's couldn't be more simple.

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

I read them, primarily postulations and theories.

So is the theory of gravity. Dismiss it at your own peril.

Now you're beginning to understand though radiometric dating is not gravity and if you were truly up on your sciences you would know the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is used most often to explain gravity, not Newton.
You are one defensive prick, yup, I have been kicking one of you sacred cows, too bad you can't separate science from your worship of it.

Radioactive decay is a well understood physical phenomenon. Ignore it at your own peril. By the way, Einstein didn't replace Newton. He elaborated on Newton. Newton's findings wrt gravity are still valid and still very much in use today. The only thing you've been kicking is your own credibility.

You keep telling yourself that Sparky.
Next time you use the time machine to go back and collect samples I'd like to come along, I just want to go back a couple of hundred years though, I have some questions that need answering. I want to do away with some assumptions...........

 

[orogenicman]

I have posted numerous scientific results in this very thread. It is the reason the thread exists in the first place. Read them. It couldn't be more simple.

I read them, primarily postulations and theories.

So is the theory of gravity. Dismiss it at your own peril.

Now you're beginning to understand though radiometric dating is not gravity and if you were truly up on your sciences you would know the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is used most often to explain gravity, not Newton.
You are one defensive prick, yup, I have been kicking one of you sacred cows, too bad you can't separate science from your worship of it.

Radioactive decay is a well understood physical phenomenon. Ignore it at your own peril. By the way, Einstein didn't replace Newton. He elaborated on Newton. Newton's findings wrt gravity are still valid and still very much in use today. The only thing you've been kicking is your own credibility.

You keep telling yourself that Sparky.
Next time you use the time machine to go back and collect samples I'd like to come along, I just want to go back a couple of hundred years though, I have some questions that need answering. I want to do away with some assumptions...........

No problem. I will make you the exact same offer I've made to every creationist I've ever run across on the internet. My offer is this. My challenge is for you and I to meet and go on a geologic field trip where I can show you how rock formations are time machines, telling us much about what occurred in the past. I currently live in Georgia, but I prefer to do this somewhere in Kentucky as it has an abundance of rock formations that contain huge and diverse fossil assemblages, and plentiful outcrops to study. Now, I know you won't agree to this (only two creationists ever have), because that would require you to actually learn something about Geology. But the offer stands, if you have the cahones.

 

[Ringel05]

I read them, primarily postulations and theories.

So is the theory of gravity. Dismiss it at your own peril.

Now you're beginning to understand though radiometric dating is not gravity and if you were truly up on your sciences you would know the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is used most often to explain gravity, not Newton.
You are one defensive prick, yup, I have been kicking one of you sacred cows, too bad you can't separate science from your worship of it.

Radioactive decay is a well understood physical phenomenon. Ignore it at your own peril. By the way, Einstein didn't replace Newton. He elaborated on Newton. Newton's findings wrt gravity are still valid and still very much in use today. The only thing you've been kicking is your own credibility.

You keep telling yourself that Sparky.
Next time you use the time machine to go back and collect samples I'd like to come along, I just want to go back a couple of hundred years though, I have some questions that need answering. I want to do away with some assumptions...........

No problem. I will make you the exact same offer I've made to every creationist I've ever run across on the internet. My offer is this. My challenge is for you and I to meet and go on a geologic field trip where I can show you how rock formations are time machines, telling us much about what occurred in the past. I currently live in Georgia, but I prefer to do this somewhere in Kentucky as it has an abundance of rock formations that contain huge and diverse fossil assemblages, and plentiful outcrops to study. Now, I know you won't agree to this (only two creationists ever have), because that would require you to actually learn something about Geology. But the offer stands, if you have the cahones.

Creationist??!! Dayamn you make a lot of assumptions!!!!!!!!

 

[orogenicman]

So is the theory of gravity. Dismiss it at your own peril.

Now you're beginning to understand though radiometric dating is not gravity and if you were truly up on your sciences you would know the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is used most often to explain gravity, not Newton.
You are one defensive prick, yup, I have been kicking one of you sacred cows, too bad you can't separate science from your worship of it.

Radioactive decay is a well understood physical phenomenon. Ignore it at your own peril. By the way, Einstein didn't replace Newton. He elaborated on Newton. Newton's findings wrt gravity are still valid and still very much in use today. The only thing you've been kicking is your own credibility.

You keep telling yourself that Sparky.
Next time you use the time machine to go back and collect samples I'd like to come along, I just want to go back a couple of hundred years though, I have some questions that need answering. I want to do away with some assumptions...........

No problem. I will make you the exact same offer I've made to every creationist I've ever run across on the internet. My offer is this. My challenge is for you and I to meet and go on a geologic field trip where I can show you how rock formations are time machines, telling us much about what occurred in the past. I currently live in Georgia, but I prefer to do this somewhere in Kentucky as it has an abundance of rock formations that contain huge and diverse fossil assemblages, and plentiful outcrops to study. Now, I know you won't agree to this (only two creationists ever have), because that would require you to actually learn something about Geology. But the offer stands, if you have the cahones.

Creationist??!! Dayamn you make a lot of assumptions!!!!!!!!

My offer stands. No takers? I didn't think so.

 

[orogenicman]

Dating methods:

Actual dating requires calibration down to the last ion -- ScienceDaily

Date:
April 15, 2015
Source:
Springer Science+Business Media
Summary:
A new solution to accurately counting the exact amounts of ions from laboratory radiation exposure helps to simulate the natural radiation of quartz samples used for thermoluminescence dating. Thermoluminescence is used extensively in archaeology and the earth sciences to date artefacts and rocks. When exposed to radiation quartz, a material found in nature, emits light proportional to the energy it absorbs. Replicating the very low dose of background radiation from natural sources present in quartz is a key precondition for precise and accurate dating results. The new method controls the accuracy of the dose calibrations delivered to the samples during laboratory irradiation with heavy particles, replicating natural radiation exposure.

 

[Ringel05]

Now you're beginning to understand though radiometric dating is not gravity and if you were truly up on your sciences you would know the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is used most often to explain gravity, not Newton.
You are one defensive prick, yup, I have been kicking one of you sacred cows, too bad you can't separate science from your worship of it.

Radioactive decay is a well understood physical phenomenon. Ignore it at your own peril. By the way, Einstein didn't replace Newton. He elaborated on Newton. Newton's findings wrt gravity are still valid and still very much in use today. The only thing you've been kicking is your own credibility.

You keep telling yourself that Sparky.
Next time you use the time machine to go back and collect samples I'd like to come along, I just want to go back a couple of hundred years though, I have some questions that need answering. I want to do away with some assumptions...........

No problem. I will make you the exact same offer I've made to every creationist I've ever run across on the internet. My offer is this. My challenge is for you and I to meet and go on a geologic field trip where I can show you how rock formations are time machines, telling us much about what occurred in the past. I currently live in Georgia, but I prefer to do this somewhere in Kentucky as it has an abundance of rock formations that contain huge and diverse fossil assemblages, and plentiful outcrops to study. Now, I know you won't agree to this (only two creationists ever have), because that would require you to actually learn something about Geology. But the offer stands, if you have the cahones.

Creationist??!! Dayamn you make a lot of assumptions!!!!!!!!

My offer stands. No takers? I didn't think so.

Obviously you're completely missing my point, which is the basics of what we all were supposed to learn in school and that is the difference between a Postulation, a Theory and a Law. Yes we know quite a bit based on our current understandings and yes we have continued to study the questions but as of yet have all the answers but the "holy grail" of science has always been Empiricism, the complete lack assumptions (evidence derived or postulate).
The fact remains that we don't know what conditions were like at time zero, we don't know if we've found all the contaminate variables so in essence we're still using our best guess based on what we know. It's impossible to show that no matter where you take someone and rehash the known for them in an attempt to prove yourself right.
That was the only point I was making.
Never claimed the dating systems were invalid, hell I specifically stated it didn't invalidate the processes in my first post, you either missed it or ignored it in favor of defending your sacred cow against someone you mistakenly assumed was a Creationist. (like I said part of my background is Psychology).

 

[edthecynic]

living cells formed from random molecules

Atoms and molecules do NOT combine randomly. Your complete ignorance is showing.

 

[edthecynic]

by chance

Random chance is not involved. You've allowed yourself to be brainwashed.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm trying to help you by showing you the mathematical impossibility of your theory

Except it is not mathematically impossible. Your brainwashers took advantage of your ignorance of the fact that atoms and molecules do NOT combine randomly, so any calculation based on randomness, as yours is, is false to begin with.

 

[orogenicman]

Radioactive decay is a well understood physical phenomenon. Ignore it at your own peril. By the way, Einstein didn't replace Newton. He elaborated on Newton. Newton's findings wrt gravity are still valid and still very much in use today. The only thing you've been kicking is your own credibility.

You keep telling yourself that Sparky.
Next time you use the time machine to go back and collect samples I'd like to come along, I just want to go back a couple of hundred years though, I have some questions that need answering. I want to do away with some assumptions...........

No problem. I will make you the exact same offer I've made to every creationist I've ever run across on the internet. My offer is this. My challenge is for you and I to meet and go on a geologic field trip where I can show you how rock formations are time machines, telling us much about what occurred in the past. I currently live in Georgia, but I prefer to do this somewhere in Kentucky as it has an abundance of rock formations that contain huge and diverse fossil assemblages, and plentiful outcrops to study. Now, I know you won't agree to this (only two creationists ever have), because that would require you to actually learn something about Geology. But the offer stands, if you have the cahones.

Creationist??!! Dayamn you make a lot of assumptions!!!!!!!!

My offer stands. No takers? I didn't think so.

Obviously you're completely missing my point, which is the basics of what we all were supposed to learn in school and that is the difference between a Postulation, a Theory and a Law. Yes we know quite a bit based on our current understandings and yes we have continued to study the questions but as of yet have all the answers but the "holy grail" of science has always been Empiricism, the complete lack assumptions (evidence derived or postulate).
The fact remains that we don't know what conditions were like at time zero, we don't know if we've found all the contaminate variables so in essence we're still using our best guess based on what we know. It's impossible to show that no matter where you take someone and rehash the known for them in an attempt to prove yourself right.
That was the only point I was making.
Never claimed the dating systems were invalid, hell I specifically stated it didn't invalidate the processes in my first post, you either missed it or ignored it in favor of defending your sacred cow against someone you mistakenly assumed was a Creationist. (like I said part of my background is Psychology).

Psychology has nothing to do with geology, though I too have a AA degree in psychology (and was 6 credit hours away from a B.A. in anthropology before I switched majors to geology) as well as one in Mathematics. I am a published geologist, and have been in the field since the 1980s. So I've heard all the arguments before. Now, either accept my offer or admit that you aren't really interested in learning anything. And by the way, best guesses? Got us to the Moon and back. You seem to believe that science is about absolutes, or that it should be about absolutes, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the fact remains that there is also a lot that we do know. The precision of radio isotopic dating is one that we know a lot about. The age of the Earth is one that we know a lot about. Now here you are claiming that you never claimed that dating methods were invalid, and yet you have repeatedly attempted to place doubt on them. Why is that if you don't believe that they are invalid?

 

[Ringel05]

You keep telling yourself that Sparky.
Next time you use the time machine to go back and collect samples I'd like to come along, I just want to go back a couple of hundred years though, I have some questions that need answering. I want to do away with some assumptions...........

No problem. I will make you the exact same offer I've made to every creationist I've ever run across on the internet. My offer is this. My challenge is for you and I to meet and go on a geologic field trip where I can show you how rock formations are time machines, telling us much about what occurred in the past. I currently live in Georgia, but I prefer to do this somewhere in Kentucky as it has an abundance of rock formations that contain huge and diverse fossil assemblages, and plentiful outcrops to study. Now, I know you won't agree to this (only two creationists ever have), because that would require you to actually learn something about Geology. But the offer stands, if you have the cahones.

Creationist??!! Dayamn you make a lot of assumptions!!!!!!!!

My offer stands. No takers? I didn't think so.

Obviously you're completely missing my point, which is the basics of what we all were supposed to learn in school and that is the difference between a Postulation, a Theory and a Law. Yes we know quite a bit based on our current understandings and yes we have continued to study the questions but as of yet have all the answers but the "holy grail" of science has always been Empiricism, the complete lack assumptions (evidence derived or postulate).
The fact remains that we don't know what conditions were like at time zero, we don't know if we've found all the contaminate variables so in essence we're still using our best guess based on what we know. It's impossible to show that no matter where you take someone and rehash the known for them in an attempt to prove yourself right.
That was the only point I was making.
Never claimed the dating systems were invalid, hell I specifically stated it didn't invalidate the processes in my first post, you either missed it or ignored it in favor of defending your sacred cow against someone you mistakenly assumed was a Creationist. (like I said part of my background is Psychology).

Psychology has nothing to do with geology, though I too have a AA degree in psychology (and was 6 credit hours away from a B.A. in anthropology before I switched majors to geology) as well as one in Mathematics. I am a published geologist, and have been in the field since the 1980s. So I've heard all the arguments before. Now, either accept my offer or admit that you aren't really interested in learning anything. And by the way, best guesses? Got us to the Moon and back. You seem to believe that science is about absolutes, or that it should be about absolutes, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the fact remains that there is also a lot that we do know. The precision of radio isotopic dating is one that we know a lot about. The age of the Earth is one that we know a lot about. Now here you are claiming that you never claimed that dating methods were invalid, and yet you have repeatedly attempted to place doubt on them. Why is that if you don't believe that they are invalid?

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

 

[orogenicman]

No problem. I will make you the exact same offer I've made to every creationist I've ever run across on the internet. My offer is this. My challenge is for you and I to meet and go on a geologic field trip where I can show you how rock formations are time machines, telling us much about what occurred in the past. I currently live in Georgia, but I prefer to do this somewhere in Kentucky as it has an abundance of rock formations that contain huge and diverse fossil assemblages, and plentiful outcrops to study. Now, I know you won't agree to this (only two creationists ever have), because that would require you to actually learn something about Geology. But the offer stands, if you have the cahones.

Creationist??!! Dayamn you make a lot of assumptions!!!!!!!!

My offer stands. No takers? I didn't think so.

Obviously you're completely missing my point, which is the basics of what we all were supposed to learn in school and that is the difference between a Postulation, a Theory and a Law. Yes we know quite a bit based on our current understandings and yes we have continued to study the questions but as of yet have all the answers but the "holy grail" of science has always been Empiricism, the complete lack assumptions (evidence derived or postulate).
The fact remains that we don't know what conditions were like at time zero, we don't know if we've found all the contaminate variables so in essence we're still using our best guess based on what we know. It's impossible to show that no matter where you take someone and rehash the known for them in an attempt to prove yourself right.
That was the only point I was making.
Never claimed the dating systems were invalid, hell I specifically stated it didn't invalidate the processes in my first post, you either missed it or ignored it in favor of defending your sacred cow against someone you mistakenly assumed was a Creationist. (like I said part of my background is Psychology).

Psychology has nothing to do with geology, though I too have a AA degree in psychology (and was 6 credit hours away from a B.A. in anthropology before I switched majors to geology) as well as one in Mathematics. I am a published geologist, and have been in the field since the 1980s. So I've heard all the arguments before. Now, either accept my offer or admit that you aren't really interested in learning anything. And by the way, best guesses? Got us to the Moon and back. You seem to believe that science is about absolutes, or that it should be about absolutes, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the fact remains that there is also a lot that we do know. The precision of radio isotopic dating is one that we know a lot about. The age of the Earth is one that we know a lot about. Now here you are claiming that you never claimed that dating methods were invalid, and yet you have repeatedly attempted to place doubt on them. Why is that if you don't believe that they are invalid?

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that led to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

 

[Ringel05]

Creationist??!! Dayamn you make a lot of assumptions!!!!!!!!

My offer stands. No takers? I didn't think so.

Obviously you're completely missing my point, which is the basics of what we all were supposed to learn in school and that is the difference between a Postulation, a Theory and a Law. Yes we know quite a bit based on our current understandings and yes we have continued to study the questions but as of yet have all the answers but the "holy grail" of science has always been Empiricism, the complete lack assumptions (evidence derived or postulate).
The fact remains that we don't know what conditions were like at time zero, we don't know if we've found all the contaminate variables so in essence we're still using our best guess based on what we know. It's impossible to show that no matter where you take someone and rehash the known for them in an attempt to prove yourself right.
That was the only point I was making.
Never claimed the dating systems were invalid, hell I specifically stated it didn't invalidate the processes in my first post, you either missed it or ignored it in favor of defending your sacred cow against someone you mistakenly assumed was a Creationist. (like I said part of my background is Psychology).

Psychology has nothing to do with geology, though I too have a AA degree in psychology (and was 6 credit hours away from a B.A. in anthropology before I switched majors to geology) as well as one in Mathematics. I am a published geologist, and have been in the field since the 1980s. So I've heard all the arguments before. Now, either accept my offer or admit that you aren't really interested in learning anything. And by the way, best guesses? Got us to the Moon and back. You seem to believe that science is about absolutes, or that it should be about absolutes, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the fact remains that there is also a lot that we do know. The precision of radio isotopic dating is one that we know a lot about. The age of the Earth is one that we know a lot about. Now here you are claiming that you never claimed that dating methods were invalid, and yet you have repeatedly attempted to place doubt on them. Why is that if you don't believe that they are invalid?

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

 

[orogenicman]

My offer stands. No takers? I didn't think so.

Obviously you're completely missing my point, which is the basics of what we all were supposed to learn in school and that is the difference between a Postulation, a Theory and a Law. Yes we know quite a bit based on our current understandings and yes we have continued to study the questions but as of yet have all the answers but the "holy grail" of science has always been Empiricism, the complete lack assumptions (evidence derived or postulate).
The fact remains that we don't know what conditions were like at time zero, we don't know if we've found all the contaminate variables so in essence we're still using our best guess based on what we know. It's impossible to show that no matter where you take someone and rehash the known for them in an attempt to prove yourself right.
That was the only point I was making.
Never claimed the dating systems were invalid, hell I specifically stated it didn't invalidate the processes in my first post, you either missed it or ignored it in favor of defending your sacred cow against someone you mistakenly assumed was a Creationist. (like I said part of my background is Psychology).

Psychology has nothing to do with geology, though I too have a AA degree in psychology (and was 6 credit hours away from a B.A. in anthropology before I switched majors to geology) as well as one in Mathematics. I am a published geologist, and have been in the field since the 1980s. So I've heard all the arguments before. Now, either accept my offer or admit that you aren't really interested in learning anything. And by the way, best guesses? Got us to the Moon and back. You seem to believe that science is about absolutes, or that it should be about absolutes, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the fact remains that there is also a lot that we do know. The precision of radio isotopic dating is one that we know a lot about. The age of the Earth is one that we know a lot about. Now here you are claiming that you never claimed that dating methods were invalid, and yet you have repeatedly attempted to place doubt on them. Why is that if you don't believe that they are invalid?

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously you're completely missing my point, which is the basics of what we all were supposed to learn in school and that is the difference between a Postulation, a Theory and a Law. Yes we know quite a bit based on our current understandings and yes we have continued to study the questions but as of yet have all the answers but the "holy grail" of science has always been Empiricism, the complete lack assumptions (evidence derived or postulate).
The fact remains that we don't know what conditions were like at time zero, we don't know if we've found all the contaminate variables so in essence we're still using our best guess based on what we know. It's impossible to show that no matter where you take someone and rehash the known for them in an attempt to prove yourself right.
That was the only point I was making.
Never claimed the dating systems were invalid, hell I specifically stated it didn't invalidate the processes in my first post, you either missed it or ignored it in favor of defending your sacred cow against someone you mistakenly assumed was a Creationist. (like I said part of my background is Psychology).

Psychology has nothing to do with geology, though I too have a AA degree in psychology (and was 6 credit hours away from a B.A. in anthropology before I switched majors to geology) as well as one in Mathematics. I am a published geologist, and have been in the field since the 1980s. So I've heard all the arguments before. Now, either accept my offer or admit that you aren't really interested in learning anything. And by the way, best guesses? Got us to the Moon and back. You seem to believe that science is about absolutes, or that it should be about absolutes, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the fact remains that there is also a lot that we do know. The precision of radio isotopic dating is one that we know a lot about. The age of the Earth is one that we know a lot about. Now here you are claiming that you never claimed that dating methods were invalid, and yet you have repeatedly attempted to place doubt on them. Why is that if you don't believe that they are invalid?

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

 

[orogenicman]

Psychology has nothing to do with geology, though I too have a AA degree in psychology (and was 6 credit hours away from a B.A. in anthropology before I switched majors to geology) as well as one in Mathematics. I am a published geologist, and have been in the field since the 1980s. So I've heard all the arguments before. Now, either accept my offer or admit that you aren't really interested in learning anything. And by the way, best guesses? Got us to the Moon and back. You seem to believe that science is about absolutes, or that it should be about absolutes, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the fact remains that there is also a lot that we do know. The precision of radio isotopic dating is one that we know a lot about. The age of the Earth is one that we know a lot about. Now here you are claiming that you never claimed that dating methods were invalid, and yet you have repeatedly attempted to place doubt on them. Why is that if you don't believe that they are invalid?

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

 

[Ringel05]

Basically I'm trying to get you to see that there POTENTIALLY are still problems with radio isotopic dating based on certain assumptions we have to make, assumptions that don't specifically invalidate it because of what we know. You seem to think it's a Godhead of your field, at least that's the way you come across, my goal is to get you and others to look understand this. The reason I emphasize Empiricism is not that science is only about absolutes it's that unless we have that there is always the possibility that our best knowledge can be turned on it's head.
Because of this I place doubt on anything that utilizes even the slightest amount of assumption as any good scientist should. Placing doubt, asking questions that may need answers is what we do as scientists or have you forgotten that.

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Spending money to travel that far to have you show me what you think you know. Of course I say it with a straight face, unlike you I know the possibility of unknown changes over the postulated millennium could potentially alter the outcome of any study. See unlike you I'm not 100% certain because I don't have that data to compare it with, neither do you.

 

[orogenicman]

Radioisotopic dating and other methods have been used successfully for decades. It came out of decades of atomic research that lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Tens of thousands of scientists are using it with success. Hundreds of laboratories across the planet are using it, also with success. Are there refinements that can be made? Certainly there are. But the fact remains that there are at least twenty methods, most of which overlap and provide a precision for dating that is a wonder to behold, and has advanced our knowledge of this planet, and the life that has evolved on it like no other methodology has. And Ringel, for you to suggest that these methods aren't empirically based demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of the science behind them that is hard to fathom; but considering that you insist on having a conversation about a subject that is obviously over your head, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Spending money to travel that far to have you show me what you think you know. Of course I say it with a straight face, unlike you I know the possibility of unknown changes over the postulated millennium could potentially alter the outcome of any study. See unlike you I'm not 100% certain because I don't have that data to compare it with, neither do you.

Are you sure about that?

Here is just a tidbit of what I know, and what I can show you in the field (one of my papers):

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Go on my field trip and I will give you the data, free of charge, even.

 

[Ringel05]

Again, I never said there were not aspects of radioscopic dating that weren't empirical, never said there were some radioscopic dating processes that weren't accurate, up to a certain amount of time before the error in calculations become exponential, you're assuming again. You really need to stop doing that, all it shows is your attempt to defend your Godhead.

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Spending money to travel that far to have you show me what you think you know. Of course I say it with a straight face, unlike you I know the possibility of unknown changes over the postulated millennium could potentially alter the outcome of any study. See unlike you I'm not 100% certain because I don't have that data to compare it with, neither do you.

Are you sure about that?

Here is just a tidbit of what I know, and what I can show you in the field (one of my papers):

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Go on my field trip and I will give you the data, free of charge, even.

Pretty sure, unless you've become omnipotent and I didn't know about it.
Hey, it's been fun, but I have real world (here and now) stuff to accomplish. Oh and I don't believe in the "Young Earth" theory as our dating systems are at least very correctly specific to a 40,000 years and mostly likely far far beyond that. There's still too many potential unknown variables for me to take radiometric dating as gospel at this time though I have no problem with the fact it does give us a fair estimation based on what we do know.

 

[orogenicman]

No aspect of radio isotopic dating is not empirical. You can't wiggle your way out of this. Is there a level of statistical error involved in the findings? Of course there are. Just as there is with ANY scientific result. And those errors are always reported. Hence, why you see a result such as 4.54 billion years +- a few million years. Or 10,000 years +- 75 years. Statistically, the result is still very significant. The errors don't invalidate the results.

When NASA sent Cassini to Saturn, there was a small window through which Cassini had to pass in order to successfully go into orbit around the planet. Cassini came within 15 miles of its intended target (well within the target window), after having traveled over a billion miles to reach it, and successfully went into orbit around Saturn, and is still there punching out data today. Statistical error? Yes. Does it invalidate the results? Not in the least.

Not wiggling myself out of anything, though you are seriously intent on doing so yourself.
Again, read through and tell me specifically where I claimed the results are invalidated, just the opposite I said it didn't necessarily invalidate the processes but again how many have of you have traveled back to day zero to confirm what you believe you know today? I would hazard a guess and say none........ Are you absolutely positive you've discovered all the potential variables that may affect the results, again I would hazard a guess and say probably not.
Hell from the way you're approaching this discussion with me leads one to assume you think the Static Universe theory is true.........

Once again, you make this "day zero" claim and do it with a straight face. The rocks/minerals/soils themselves ARE time capsules. Once again, there is a very easy way to resolve this discussion. Take that geologic field trip with me. That's the only way you are going to understand the science. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Spending money to travel that far to have you show me what you think you know. Of course I say it with a straight face, unlike you I know the possibility of unknown changes over the postulated millennium could potentially alter the outcome of any study. See unlike you I'm not 100% certain because I don't have that data to compare it with, neither do you.

Are you sure about that?

Here is just a tidbit of what I know, and what I can show you in the field (one of my papers):

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Go on my field trip and I will give you the data, free of charge, even.

Pretty sure, unless you've become omnipotent and I didn't know about it.
Hey, it's been fun, but I have real world (here and now) stuff to accomplish. Oh and I don't believe in the "Young Earth" theory as our dating systems are at least very correctly specific to a 40,000 years and mostly likely far far beyond that. There's still too many potential unknown variables for me to take radiometric dating as gospel at this time though I have no problem with the fact it does give us a fair estimation based on what we do know.

Well, that's only because you don't have any expertise in the matter. I do.