Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,850
3,884
✟273,691.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is no fact of a settelment between 27,000 and 20,000 BC
What a willfully ignorant statement.
The site contains fired clay fragments which are dated using thermoluminescence.
The dates obtained from the fragments is consistent with the radiocarbon dating of human remains and charcoal at the site.

Thermoluminescence dating provides independent verification of the radiocarbon dating.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What a willfully ignorant statement.
The site contains fired clay fragments which are dated using thermoluminescence.
The dates obtained from the fragments is consistent with the radiocarbon dating of human remains and charcoal at the site.

Thermoluminescence dating provides independent verification of the radiocarbon dating.
All containing atoms (or parts of atoms) created in 4004 BC.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,546
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,278.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
What a willfully ignorant statement.
The site contains fired clay fragments which are dated using thermoluminescence.
The dates obtained from the fragments is consistent with the radiocarbon dating of human remains and charcoal at the site.

Thermoluminescence dating provides independent verification of the radiocarbon dating.
You disagree with what I said about facts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
590
55
55
Virginia
✟22,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
In other words this is an exercise in confirmation bias where you reject or accept the evidence depending on the narrative and not the science.
I reject or accept the evidence once I have been able to fully understand the data and how the conclusions were made.
 
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
590
55
55
Virginia
✟22,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What evidence do you refute? Artifacts? Archaeology? Something else?

Artifacts from Dolní Vestonice

Radiocarbon dates on the human remains and charcoal recovered from hearths range between 31,383-30,869 calibrated radiocarbon years before the present (cal BPDolni Vestonice - Upper Paleolithic Site in the Czech Republic
The human remains and the charcoal were carbon dated to the same to time?
The human remains and the charcoal were carbon dated to the same to time?
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,850
3,884
✟273,691.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I reject or accept the evidence once I have been able to fully understand the data and how the conclusions were made.
Yeah pull the other leg.
Recall your post in another thread where you accepted the dates quoted.
The dating techniques are exactly the same which you are querying in this thread.
Writing inscriptions on bone are radiocarbon dated, on fired clay tablets they are thermoluminescence dated.

You are only interested in the final result, if the date exceeds 6000 years old the dating technique must be wrong, if less it must be right.
No analysis or understanding is required on your part.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,850
3,884
✟273,691.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
All containing atoms (or parts of atoms) created in 4004 BC.
Well lets take a look at this list.
Comparison+of+commonly+used+dating+methods.jpg
Care to explain why the upper limit is not 6000 years for all the dating techniques and how do Uranium-Lead and Magnetostratigraphy work when their lower limits exceed 6000 years?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Care to explain why the upper limit is not 6000 years for all the dating techniques and how do Uranium-Lead and Magnetostratigraphy work when their lower limits exceed 6000 years?
If I had a candle that would take 30,000 years to burn out, but I lit it 6000 years ago, what's that tell you?

So we have elements that have a half-life of 30,000 years.

Big deal.

They'll never react (or halve, or change, or step down, or whatever you call it).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,850
3,884
✟273,691.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Where as evidence or "facts" cannot a prove a theory it can be used to disprove it or in this case belief systems such as YEC.
The claim the universe and earth are 6000 years old is clearly refuted by the evidence obtained from cosmology, astrophysics, physics, geology and archaeology.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,850
3,884
✟273,691.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If I had a candle that would take 30,000 years to burn out, but I lit it 6000 years ago, what's that tell you?
It tells me you haven’t addressed the upper limit at all; in fact you have opened up a Pandora’s box for YEC namely the speed of light.
What do you think the maximum distance between the candle and the earth is if the universe is 6000 years old?
The answer is clearly 6000 light years but astronomical standard candles such Cepheid variables and type Ia supernova reveal the universe to be far larger and therefore much older.

So we have elements that have a half-life of 30,000 years.

Big deal.

They'll never react (or halve, or change, or step down, or whatever you call it).
You didn’t address the lower limit either; if creationism occurred 6000 years ago how does Uranium-Lead and Magnetostratigraphy work when their lower limits exceed 6000 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,546
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,278.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well lets take a look at this list.
Comparison+of+commonly+used+dating+methods.jpg
Care to explain why the upper limit is not 6000 years for all the dating techniques and how do Uranium-Lead and Magnetostratigraphy work when their lower limits exceed 6000 years?
Last thursdayism
Where as evidence or "facts" cannot a prove a theory it can be used to disprove it or in this case belief systems such as YEC.
The claim the universe and earth are 6000 years old is clearly refuted by the evidence obtained from cosmology, astrophysics, physics, geology and archaeology.
Of course
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,850
3,884
✟273,691.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Last thursdayism

Of course
As I mentioned to AV last thursdayism would result in the upper limit for all dating methods to be no older than 6000 years old.
A picture I imagine YECists would not be impressed with is this.
.
1670552981107.png

This is an image I took of a spherical globule or chondrule from a meteorite sample of mine found in Africa and is around 0.1mm diameter.
Washington university commented on the image the chondrule is at least 4.5 billion years old before the earth formed.
They dated their own samples of the meteorite using a method employed by astrophysicists and planetary scientists but not included in the list in post #707.
Pb-Pb dating is the method used.
Chondrules and calcium–aluminium-rich inclusions (CAIs) are spherical particles that make up chondritic meteorites and are believed to be the oldest objects in the solar system. Hence precise dating of these objects is important to constrain the early evolution of the solar system and the age of the earth. The U–Pb dating method can yield the most precise ages for early solar-system objects due to the optimal half-life of 238U. However, the absence of zircon or other uranium-rich minerals in chondrites, and the presence of initial non-radiogenic Pb (common Pb), rules out direct use of the U-Pb concordia method. Therefore, the most precise dating method for these meteorites is the Pb–Pb method, which allows a correction for common Pb.[3]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,289
✟272,305.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art?​


Yes, that's the title of the paper. Neanderthals were an archaic human species or sub-species (opinion is still split).
Do you have any issue with the facts presented in the paper? Or the others?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
590
55
55
Virginia
✟22,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah pull the other leg.
Recall your post in another thread where you accepted the dates quoted.
The dating techniques are exactly the same which you are querying in this thread.
Writing inscriptions on bone are radiocarbon dated, on fired clay tablets they are thermoluminescence dated.

You are only interested in the final result, if the date exceeds 6000 years old the dating technique must be wrong, if less it must be right.
No analysis or understanding is required on your part.
I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results

But to know how radiometric dating works is not an assumption or an unknown. All you are showing is your own incredulity on the matter.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,546
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,278.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results
You assume the accuracy of the historical
account of the biggest event ever,
Noah's ark and the flood?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results

No, recorded history does not speak for itself. And actually, the further back we go, the more that "recorded history" DOES rely on assumptions, unknowns, interpretions and guesses (however educatedly they are arrived at by the modern historian ...)

That's just the representational nature of human writing about the past. We just have to deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,546
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,278.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, recorded history does not speak for itself. And actually, the further back we go, the more that "recorded history" DOES rely on assumptions, unknowns, interpretions and guesses (however educatedly they are arrived at by the modern historian ...)

That's just the representational nature of human writing about the past. We just have to deal with it.
And who records "History" the official
True History? That exists only in dream world.

Anyone who has taken part in an event
and then reads the news account knows
theres different histories by the next day.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0