by wizzstick 91 Replies latest watchtower bible
I just cannot get over the depth of stupid displayed by Mr. Brown.
I think there should be a new dictionary definition for stupidity
(st
-p
d
-t
, sty-)
n. pl. stu·pid·i·ties 1. The quality or condition of being stupid 2. A stupid act, remark, or idea. 3. James Brown - poster on Jehovah's-witness.net Out of facts and useful information. Cant leave. That's how I figured you That's why I cant buy what you say. You got nothing.
Posted by accident to wrong poster
Thanks jgnat.
I just wondered if any scientists had looked into this using the new calibrated data. It's simply irrefutable proof and I think it could be lethal for many Witnesses faith.
Thanks for the link though - interesting!
wizzstick, I was wrong. What I'm looking for is the top end where radiocarbon is accurate. It is reasonably accurate back to 50,000 years. I'm still looking for the top end.
http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html
"When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C-14 dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before 1000 BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. For example, pieces of wood that date at about 6200 BC by tree-ring counts date at only 5400 BC by regular C-14 dating and 3900 BC by Cook's creationist revision of C-14 dating (as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ). So, despite creationist claims, C-14 before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C-14 dating errs on the side of making objects from before 1000 BC look too young, not too old."
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
Thanks again jgnat.
For me 50,000 years means that any JW is going to struggle with disproving the results for pre-Adam man made objects and the complete lack of evidence for the flood.
Once when I had this conversation the JW steered it to say, well 10,000 years is very close to when Adam was created so we just don't know.
But 50,000 years is irrefutable. I honestly believe this could open some peoples eyes. Hence me looking for any articles where a scientist has re-looked at the Flood subject with the newly calibrated measurements.
Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.
I can see from Wein that there are posibly problems with the creationist results based on The argon dating method.
I don't know if they were trying to trick the labatory or they were all just working with the information at the time.
So I will quit my previous arguments regarding that and the Mt. St. Helens Lava.
I will have to read digest and better understand Weins article to reacess my thoughts on circular reasoning and
confirmation bias regarding the dating methods.
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.
Stumbler I am going to upgrade and retool my thinking. I don't want to be intellectually lazy.
Let's look at ice core isotope measurements. Temperatures were very much cooler during the last glacial period which ended about 10,000 years ago. No big dips or doodles after that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period
Out of facts and useful information. Cant leave.
We have already rebutted every argument you have given on this thread on others. You are the one that hasn't any facts and can not explain the crap you keep copying from creationist sites.
The "some kind of trigonometry" comment is a cracker.
That "some kind of trigonometry" (actually using time-honored triangulation) allows us to build bridges and skyscrapers with precision. If triangulation were flawed, this would all fall down.
But of course, James Brown, you have chosen to concentrate your efforts in your realm of confidence.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/11/full/
