Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed (page 7)

Comatose

Avoiding the universe question? Do you understand how they measure its age?

James Brown

Do I understand how they measure the age of the universe?

I think I do. They measure it by the speed of light how fast they think it takes for light to

get here from different stars using some kind of trigonometry.

Once again it cant be proven. Since it can't be proven its hard to disprove kind of like God.

But mans ability to date rocks has been dis proven that is why I pick that battle.

We all pick our battles. I'll stick with mans inability to date rocks and fossils.

I got a winner with this one.

BackseatDevil

oh for christ's sake here

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/ages.html

and BTW, carbon dating only works with organic materials (fossils and such). if you want more detailed info go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

this describes the potassium to argon technique http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/radiom.html

James... My friend I'm glad you post here. We don't agree, but its nice we have a place to speak our minds. I do feel the methods of telling the age of the universe are reliable. I think math and physics and science all back it up. Talk later.

James Brown

Thank you Comatose: I'm glad you post here also.

wizzstick

Jame Brown - you said:

Wizzstick. I don't get it why are you showing me an article that shows radiocarbon dating something 4,500 years old? Am I supposed to be impressed that they didn't date the site 4.5 billion years old.

The whole point of this thread was about the flood of Noah's day, and how the discoveries at Lake Suigetsu study have provided 'a truly terrestrial record (which) gives us better resolution and confidence in radiocarbon dating'. Radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 50,000 years, which has clear implications for dating the flood. I don't give a crap about the age of the earth. Not sure why you've been posting on a subject you can't understand.

This gives proof to my saying that they use the stones to date the stones which is circular reasoning.

They are not using the stones to date the stones. They're using the the rate of decay of carbon-14 in the stones. I really don't think you have a clue on this subject.

I'm not going to be a sheeple like all you here who don't know what they are talking about and act like they do. I left that back in the 80's.

Since leaving the Witnesses you seem to have trust issues with anyone or anything that claims to be authoritive on a subject. That's up to you. But saying, as in effect you do, "You say it's black? Well I say it's white" doesn't mean you can see more clearly than the rest of us, or that we're just sheeple and you're cleverer than that.

It's simply being arrogant and wanting to be ignorant.

TheStumbler

James Brown, I'm more of a reader than a poster on here but your posts have frustrated me so much I couldn't help myself. I'm not frustrated because I think you are wrong (I think lots of people on here are wrong) although I do happen to think you are wrong. It's more the fact that you continually use arguments against radiometric dating that have been so thoroughly and utterly debunked. Repeating arguments that demonstrate your ignorance of the subject and making no attempt to understand the criticisms and refutations of the arguments you use makes you intellectually lazy at best. For example, Crofty and others have explained to you in detail why the Mt St Helen's is an example of the misuse of dating methods and not a valid example of the inaccuracy of dating methods yet you continue to use it. Posters have continually asked you to explain why dating methods are based on circular reasoning but every time you attempted to do so you have unwittingly demonstrated your own misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works and total inability to comprehend why scientists are confident in its accuracy. Having said all of that. I think you are kind of right. We can't know with absolute certainty that radiometric dating is accurate. There are certain assumptions built into our calculations such as the constant rate of radioactive decay (this is not circular reason by the way). It is possible that the multiple independent dating methods converging on the same results over hundreds of thousands of trials are purely down to random chance. This is extremely improbable but it is possible. It is possible in the same way it is possible that the photons we observe today that look like they were produced in stars billions of light years away were created only 6,000 years ago and that the age (or even the existence) of those stars is illusory. It is improbable but possible so we can't rule it out. It is possible in the same way that it is possible the earth was created yesterday with all of our fake memories in tact. This too is improbable but possible so we shouldn't rule it out. Basically, your argument is that we can't know anything with certainty without empirically observing it. Even if something is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probably true we should discard it as useless because we don't know with absolute certainty that it is true. By your standard we don't even know if yesterday happened let alone how old rocks are. At some point you have to stop worrying about what is possible and absolute truth and think instead about what is more probable. You have left the organization but you are still thinking in black and white absolutist terms. You think you are being a free thinker and skeptical by not accepting scientific dating methods. Good for you. Now go read the science, which you clearly haven't done, and apply that same skepticism to Hovind and young earth 'science' and your own beliefs. At least then you might be able to demonstrate some intellectual integrity. You still refer to 'human' knowledge and reasoning pejoratively which suggests you maybe haven't quite escaped the Watchtower mode of thinking yet. And I apologize for the patronising tone but, like I said, I was frustrated.

TheStumbler

sane post but with spaces:

James Brown,

I'm more of a reader than a poster on here but your posts have frustrated me so much I couldn't help myself.

I'm not frustrated because I think you are wrong (I think lots of people on here are wrong) although I do happen to think you are wrong. It's more the fact that you continually use arguments against radiometric dating that have been so thoroughly and utterly debunked.

Repeating arguments that demonstrate your ignorance of the subject and making no attempt to understand the criticisms and refutations of the arguments you use makes you intellectually lazy at best.

For example, Crofty and others have explained to you in detail why the Mt St Helen's is an example of the misuse of dating methods and not a valid example of the inaccuracy of dating methods yet you continue to use it.

Posters have continually asked you to explain why dating methods are based on circular reasoning but every time you attempted to do so you have unwittingly demonstrated your own misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works and total inability to comprehend why scientists are confident in its accuracy.

Having said all of that. I think you are kind of right. We can't know with absolute certainty that radiometric dating is accurate. There are certain assumptions built into our calculations such as the constant rate of radioactive decay (this is not circular reason by the way). It is possible that the multiple independent dating methods converging on the same results over hundreds of thousands of trials are purely down to random chance. This is extremely improbable but it is possible.

It is possible in the same way it is possible that the photons we observe today that look like they were produced in stars billions of light years away were created only 6,000 years ago and that the age (or even the existence) of those stars is illusory. It is improbable but possible so we can't rule it out.

It is possible in the same way that it is possible the earth was created yesterday with all of our fake memories in tact. This too is improbable but possible so we shouldn't rule it out.

Basically, your argument is that we can't know anything with certainty without empirically observing it. Even if something is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probably true we
should discard it as useless because we don't know with absolute certainty that it is true. By your standard we don't even know if yesterday happened let alone how old rocks are.

At some point you have to stop worrying about what is possible and absolute truth and think instead about what is more probable. You have left the organization but you are still thinking in black and white absolutist terms.

You think you are being a free thinker and skeptical by not accepting scientific dating methods. Good for you. Now go read the science, which you clearly haven't done, and apply that same skepticism to Hovind and young earth 'science' and your own beliefs. At least then you might be able to demonstrate some intellectual integrity.

You still refer to 'human' knowledge and reasoning pejoratively which suggests you maybe haven't quite fully escaped the Watchtower mode of thinking yet.

And I apologize for the patronising tone but, like I said, I was frustrated.

notsurewheretogo

Cracking post TheStumbler!

jgnat

Earliest map of the world, 6th century BCE, flat and surrounded by a great ocean and star points.

Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

Share this