-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Consistent Radiometric Dates
- Thread starter LiveFreeOrDie
- Start date
Can you point us to a URL where it lists all the other dates they threw out?
In other words, without ALL the data, this "consistency" could be nothing more than a case of:
Dating method 1: 100 mya, 500 mya, 300 mya 700 mya
Given the strata, we believe the 500 mya is correct. So method 1 yields 500 mya.
Dating method 2: 400 mya 600 mya 700 mya 500 mya
Given the strata and that we have data that says this sample should be 500 mya, that particular date (500) is correct. Therefore dating method #2 yields 500 mya.
Well, what do you know? When we use two different dating methods, they come up with the same date! Well, that proves how reliable they are.
In other words, without ALL the data, this "consistency" could be nothing more than a case of:
Dating method 1: 100 mya, 500 mya, 300 mya 700 mya
Given the strata, we believe the 500 mya is correct. So method 1 yields 500 mya.
Dating method 2: 400 mya 600 mya 700 mya 500 mya
Given the strata and that we have data that says this sample should be 500 mya, that particular date (500) is correct. Therefore dating method #2 yields 500 mya.
Well, what do you know? When we use two different dating methods, they come up with the same date! Well, that proves how reliable they are.
Upvote
0
its an evilutionist conspiracy LFOD, just like antibiotic resistance (this term was invented to make drug companies more money) and the human genome(the funding for this project really went towards the establishment of a new world order, possibly with the involvement of satan)
Upvote
0
What was the name of that law that says never ascribe something to conspiracy that could more easily be explained by stupidity?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
The original research papers are listed in the table. Before you accuse Dr. Meert of being a liar, maybe you ought to get your facts straight first.
Upvote
0
I wasn't planning on accusing him of being a liar, but I suppose that's possible. Regardless, I wouldn't accuse him of doing good science, either, unless I saw the data, which is why I asked for a link to all of the data that was discarded in order to come up with the table.
Upvote
0
What is he saying here? That HE didn't throw out any data, or that the labs didn't? How does he know if the labs did or didn't?
Upvote
0
Too late. You already did. By accusing him of throwing out data, you are in essence accusing him of lying. I find it rather disgusting that someone who calls himself a Christian apparently feels no guilt in assasinating the character of someone he has never met without any basis in fact.
Is that how science works? Nothing can be accepted as true until a URL is provided to Nick Petreley pointing to data that meets his approval? References to the original publications were provided. Your continued denial of the scientific conclusions without even bothering to check out the original sources is nothing but the ramblings of an ignorant fool.
Upvote
0
It does give you something to explain, however. Oh, is that what you were dancing around? How about it? Why are there any concordant dates at all?
Upvote
0
Either you can't read or you are now lying, yourself. I said, "Can you point us to a URL where it lists all the other dates they [meaning the labs] threw out?"
ROFL! I'm laughing so hard I'm typeless.
An ignorant fool is one who looks at a table of concordant dates as "evidence" for the reliability of radiometric dating and FAILS to ask for ALL of the data to see what the other results were that didn't make it to the table.
Upvote
0
Again, if the author is trying to show concordance with any level of credibility, then he must show ALL of the results, including any that were disregarded as "anomalies." Otherwise the table is deceptive and useless, since it could simply be concordant via circular reasoning.
Upvote
0
So you know this guy?
Perhaps you could have him participate in a discussion here. That would be interesting.
Upvote
0
So does Meert go by a number of aliases, then? I see multiple names responsible for the numbers in his concordance table.
So is Meert Verschure et al? Is he also Dahlgren, Saether, Faul et al, Torsvik and Storey?
Upvote
0
"LOL. Like most geochronologists, and unlike most creationists, I actually do the sample collection, preparation and run the samples in the lab myself. There is no 'they', most of us do the labwork and the analysis ourselves."
Depends on the company doing the funding. Where I worked the scientists would be talked to by management about how they pay them $100,000+ per year to manage the data and the tech gets $15.00 per hour to do these simple task. If we seen a scientist in the lab, then he/she most likely would be there "watching" the proceedure not actually doing it (and we always welcomed those and respected them for this). However I guess some of the smaller companies would require the scientists to actually do these task, then again they don't get the big bucks that our scientist did. But to say it's the norm then that's just not so.
It's just not a perfect world. There are good scientists and bad ones, good techs and bad ones. I'm noticing more and more on this board how people think scientists are to be worshipped as being perfect in every way. I'm here to burst your bubble, sorry, just not so. They put on their pants/skirts just like you we do. Is this the start of another church or something?
Doc
Depends on the company doing the funding. Where I worked the scientists would be talked to by management about how they pay them $100,000+ per year to manage the data and the tech gets $15.00 per hour to do these simple task. If we seen a scientist in the lab, then he/she most likely would be there "watching" the proceedure not actually doing it (and we always welcomed those and respected them for this). However I guess some of the smaller companies would require the scientists to actually do these task, then again they don't get the big bucks that our scientist did. But to say it's the norm then that's just not so.
It's just not a perfect world. There are good scientists and bad ones, good techs and bad ones. I'm noticing more and more on this board how people think scientists are to be worshipped as being perfect in every way. I'm here to burst your bubble, sorry, just not so. They put on their pants/skirts just like you we do. Is this the start of another church or something?
Doc
Upvote
0
Don't you get it? The table is all the data! Which part of Meert's reply don't you understand?
It's only because of your theological presumptions that you have to invent this missing fantasy data. I hope you are enjoying yourself in Barney-land.
Upvote
0
So what are you saying now? Meert is not a liar but everyone else is?
The revised Petreley theorem:
"All scientists except Prof. Joe Meert are stupid liars".
Upvote
0
Similar threads
