Still man cant date rocks they have tried and they have failed.
I'm not aware of any newer properly scientifically blind test that
are available at the present time.
If man evolved?
by tornapart 427 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
James Brown
If you could explain to me in your own words how you think they date rocks,
I can show you your circular thinking that evades you.
-
cofty
You are taking the piss now.
The big post on page 9 with all the pretty pictures is how they date rocks all in my own words - and not too many long ones.
Read it again and let me know if you have a well thought out question that hasn't been answered 20 times already.
-
Comatose
JB - it's hard to explain things sometimes over posts. In a voice conversation I think I could explain to you what you are missing.
Radiometric dating isn't meant to date young rocks. It's designed for rocks that are older. A good way to illustrate a similar thing is the following. A small scale that measures ounces in the kitchen, like the kind you could measure out 6oz of a liquid. It is a scale. It does accurately measure small items it is meant to measure. But if I stood on it, it would just error out and not return a correct result. In fact, you could say that just as a scientist would want to know where the rock from, a person measuring with the scale we spoke of might say, "sure I can measure something for you, if it is small or light". It wouldn't be fair of me to put an anvil on the small scale and then declare it inaccurate. Or say, "well if you have to have someone tell you the item is small to get a measurement then its circular reasoning to be able to tell the weight of small things only, it can't weigh things unless you say it is small".
similarly, just because they need the rock to be old or from a certain strata doesn't make it rigged, it's just the parameters the radiocarbon dating must use.
-
keynumber
cofty, boy did I go from a cave into a cavern, from a smoke signal to modern technology
I stand corrected. you certainly are well read on this subject, certainly w/ strong background of education,
remember their is no absolute truth, and as well educated in this as you are, its sad that your contribution is swallowed up in your longwinded explanations and self-assuming arrogance. go back into your cave, that you think is a cavern....KEYNUMBER
-
cofty
its sad that your contribution is swallowed up in your longwinded explanations and self-assuming arrogance. go back into your cave
I can see you are going to be a lot of fun to have around. Do you intend to contribute to discussions or just pop in to throw around sophomoric insults?
longwinded explanations
Apart from a slightly lengthy explanation of radiometric dating I tend to be very pithy.
remember their is no absolute truth
The earth is not flat. Humans evolved over millions of years from non-human ancestors. There's two for starters.
-
rawe
Hi Cofty,
"Genesis says god made Adam as a special creation from the dust and then breathed magic breath into him." To be sure, I am not suggesting that Carl Sagan views are in agreement with broader scope of Genesis. I am only making the very narrow application of "from dust" to suggest the connection between some of the thinking you see and Genesis and what has later been illuminated through science. Science starts with observation and moves on from there. I think it is reasonable to assume the writer of Genesis did make some observations, such as death leads to decay and thus back to dust, so perhaps that too is where we came from. His observations were of course pretty superficial and even technically inaccurate since most decay after death would be considered a biologiclal process.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
rawe
Hi James,
"I can see the idea that we are made of stardust. I don't believe they have ever found anything in space that is not here on earth. At the same time they haven't done much exploration of space." The actual quote from Carl Sagan was in his series Cosmos...
The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff
As I understand it, all of this relates to our current understanding of the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. Helium for example is understood to be formed in stars like our Sun via nuclear fusion. The Wikipedia article on it talks about much of helium in the universe being formed in 1 to 3 minutes after the Big Bang event. As we move on to heavier stuff, like carbon, current understanding suggest supernova star explosions are required. Thus all the elements that made the earth and ultimately resulted in living things like us, can be said to come from 'starstuff' as Carl said.
Cheers,
-Randy
ps. Thanks for your comments about reading to children. To be honest they grumble a bit as we get started, but it only takes a few minutes, so it works out not too bad. And I do hope they will have fond memories of this.
-
Qcmbr
I suspect James is trolling. He has made no attempt to engage in this conversation imo but seems to be having his own dialogue , with himself, and seems to have come to the conclusion ( without the ability to comprehend the facts required to make an opinion) that Hovind is correct. With the exception of once again giving us ( and I mean Cofty and Jgnat ) a good opportunity to show how useful science can be this thread is a three course troll feast.
-
Satanus
I will leave it up to james brown and the posters here to decide if this is bait, or not.
----
Post 569
If you can explain to me in a paragraph or two what you are talking about. I might look further into your suggested readings. If there was a scientific method that could show the earth was more than 100,000 years old and could stand up to scrutiny, I would have to change my understanding of the bible.
Post 571
If someone could explain it in a few short easy to understand paragraphs that would put an end to my young earth theory.
Post 573
If the earth is in excess of 100,000 years old, I could more easily accept the various macro evolution theories.
I would still have a problem with the errors in isotope dating but if the earth is over 100,000 years old, I don't have a whole lot of incentive to argue my concerns.
Post 574
Jgnat the highlighted paragraph is a good simple explanation. I was not aware of a method that could date the earth over 100,000 years. I will reflect on it and read some more about it. If the devil is not in the details then that would be the end of my believing in a young earth.
Post 575
Now that I see that ice cores may date the earth over 100,000 years if that proves true there is not much use in me debating or arguing about other methods I don't know about.
If the earth is over 100, 000 years old my understanding of the bible and a young earth is compromised.
The genealogy of Jesus back to Adam would indicate a young earth. If the earth is not young that would make me question the writings about Jesus and the bible.------
S