If man evolved? (page 28)

keynumber

cofty, look at the evolution theory, belief, from this angle. jws and maybe others have very strong assertions that man has only been on the earth around 6000 years.

maybe their not exactly wrong and exactly right.

I found it interesting that the discovery of fossils not wood chips but of humans, animals, birds that date back millions of years. when you present this to a fundamental christian asking them why the dates go to the millions contrary to homo sapians only being on earth 6000 yrs +-, some respond that scientist are in error with their carbon dating methods, others, the rank and file just believe because they are told.

I think we are a genetic experiement. God and his Angels were creating life through process of genetics. cro-mangdun, peking man, neanderthal and what ever the "evolutionary" ladder was in order, "they" finally got it right, and comes the homosapien. you can't explain to fundumentlist the different "creations" that stand unique to their kinds in islands such as madagascar, australia etc in a 6000 yr. pod. its not only unscientific but it insults the 'Gods, Creators to insult the beauty of all this planet as if we were making a ramon noodles. KEYNUMBER, THANK YOU

cantleave

They date 5 year old lava rocks from mt St. Helens at 200 thousand years which is like 195,000 percent error.

As has already been explained if you use the wrong radiometric clock you will get the wrong answer. Would you measure the time taken for a blink of an eye with an egg timer? Of course not! Why? Because it is an inappropriate methodolgy. Using the correct clock will give a more reliable result, thats why stopwatches accurate to 1000th of second exist!

The work you by Austin et al to which you keep referring to gave the spurious date because the wrong methodology was used - K-Ar. The half life of K-40 is approximately 1250 million years and is not appropriate for measuring rocks that are just 100's or 1000's of years old since there would not enough time for Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected. Geochron laboratories who conducted the analysis even had a disclaimer to this effect. These samples should have never been submited to this laboratory in the first place, which calls into question what Austin et al were trying to achieve! They knew the constraints of the K-Ar method as stated by the lab , yet still submitted a rock that they knew was only a maximum of 100's / 1000's of years old. Additionally information was supplied to the lab as to where the sample were collected. They were setting the test up to fail. As a scientist I would say that is not science, that is charlatanism!

cofty

My point is nobody understands radiometric dating well enough to explain it in there own words - James Brown

I do. Lots of other people do. I explained it in my own words on page 9 and tried not to use long words. Do you want me to dumb it down a bit more?

Every one of your so-called objections are answered explicitly in the Wien article that you are too lazy to read.

I have endless patience for somebody who wants to learn but I'm bored by your obtuseness.

I think we are a genetic experiement. God and his Angels were creating life through process of genetics - keynumber

Hello Keynumber. I assume you are being ironic?

rawe

Hi James,

"It's hocus pocus. People who live off tax payers dollars in the education system trying to confuse the masses with their mumbo jumbo." To me this is a key thought in one of your posts. One that I was hitting on as well. That is, in regards to knowledge and expertise to there is a question of who to trust. And, it does relate to motivation. Maybe what is going on is most in the scientific community know their dating methods are bogus, that the theory of evolution is nonsense, but are trapped in a system wherein they need to promote a sort of orthodoxy in order to get paid. In fact we make a point very much like this in regards to the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are trapped, they simply cannot say things they might otherwise know is true.

So... how can we sort this out? How can we tell if the data we are being handed is not tainted by bias?

Cheers,

-Randy

Comatose

James Brown... Ever been in a cave? Ever seen a giant stellagtite or stalagmite? They take tens or hundreds of thousands of years to form. For an obvious reason. Hard minerals slowly turn to deposits and they then grow down out of the caves ceiling. How would you explain those with a belief in a young earth theory. Third attempt to get you to answer.

cofty

Fame, riches and Noble prizes await anybody who can show radiometric dating is faulty - still waiting.

The idea that science is some of coordinated atheist conspiracy is lunacy. It is a cut-throat world of uncompromising competition. Erorrs do not thrive for long.

Gopher

:Maybe what is going on is most in the scientific community know their dating methods are bogus, that the theory of evolution is nonsense, but are trapped in a system wherein they need to promote a sort of orthodoxy in order to get paid.

I couldn't disagree more. Peer review of all scientific studies ensures a healthy and vigorous debate. This is quite unlike anything that occurs in the JW's or any other religion.

Scientists need to do their job to get paid. That job includes performing verifiable research and to share in reviewing what others have put forth. It is not a bunch of people nodding their heads and adhering to a script or textbook. It isn't religion. Science has built on things they thought earlier and re-tested and re-examined everything. The best scientific explanation at which they arrive is called a "theory". Theories are not just postulations or guesses, but are the result of rigorous scientific review and even debate.

Heaven

One of the methods for determining radiocarbon dating is called "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry".

There seem to be varying methods used for Uranium to Lead (U-Pb) dating. One example is called "Laser Ablation-Multi Ion Counting-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry".

edited to add: James, it would be real cool if you have time and energy enough to put your owns words into describing the above. I know you said you are going to check out the ice cores and that's cool ( ).

One of the things I find useful when I'm training someone new on the job is to have them describe in their own words a new topic that they then have to go and research and document. It is a very effective educational method.

cantleave

My point is nobody understands radiometric dating well enough to explain it in there own words

Just to add that I understand the process and could explain it in my own words if required. Stop judging others by your own willful ignorance.

jgnat

James Brown, every explanation I have given was in my own words. If you refuse to understand, that's your business. I thought the warehouse full of ice cores was pretty convincing.

As far as I can tell, your lack of confidence in radiometric testing is resting on a single instance, Mount St. Helen's lava, the results of which were explained to you. Using this single instance as reason enough to throw out all radiometric testing, is an example of confirmation bias.

Snowfall and melt, a little dust on top, one year. More snowfall and melt, little dust on top, second year. Layer upon layer of ice and dust, many years. Count the layers of dust - number of years. Count all the layers of dust, and that's how many years we can go back. So far the U.S. Geological survey has thousands of meters of ice core samples.

If a radiometric test of a sample from 3,000 meters down matches up with the result from manual counting of the rings, we have a linear confirmation of two counting methods.

If man evolved?

Share this