Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Assyrian]

I'll give some examples of what I mean. Let's take the widely practiced philosophy of naturalism. For this example I will be using the definition found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Naturalism requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.Thus, all conclusions given under this philosophy will be consistent on this one issue: natural causation. This is true even if the phenomenon being explained occurred supernaturally.

In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism (yet, another unfounded foundational belief) assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

It is these kinds of philosophical opinions that create, by limitation and ability, similar and consistent scientific conclusions.

Methodological naturalism does not mean you will get a conclusion of naturalistic causes, if you are looking for a naturalistic cause and there isn't one, then you won't find a cause. But you haven't answered glaudys and my point, it is the consistency of the answers you have to deal with, not the fact they are consistently naturalistic. It is not that different dating techniques find a date, it is that they find the same date.

 

[Jig]

Methodological naturalism does not mean you will get a conclusion of naturalistic causes, if you are looking for a naturalistic cause and there isn't one, then you won't find a cause.

Naturalism and materialism saturate today's historical science scene. All conclusions must be naturalistic and if a conclusion is undetermined a naturalistic conclusion is still assumed. Never is supernatural activity thought of as a possible conclusion. This is a huge limitation and certainly can lead to false conclusions.

It is not that different dating techniques find a date, it is that they find the same date.

It is true that we usually see the radiometric evidences being interpreted as having a similar range of dates. This is expected, however, because similar dating material (rocks, bone, etc.) from the same period in the past will obviously have a similar actual age.

These test use the same assumptions across the lines. If different assumptions are made in the beginning of these tests we will end up with different ages BUT we should still see the same pattern of consistence in the dates. The only difference would be the number in front of the age.

Consistence does not necessitate that your assumptions are valid.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

It is true that we usually see the radiometric evidences being interpreted as having a similar range of dates.

Jig, sorry, that's a massive understatement. First, the various dating methods are not all radioactive - they include a wide range of completely different methods, including tree rings, oxidation rates, layers of yearly sediment, yearly coral growth, historical records, and so on. Next, all of these methods do no allow for widely divergent interpretations. It's not like judging whether art is good or bad, there are objective methods that are not based on one person's subjective interpretation.

These test use the same assumptions across the lines. .

No, they don't. As pointed out before, they are different methods, based on different phenomena that are well studied independently of the other methods.

If different assumptions are made in the beginning of these tests we will end up with different ages

What, and just arbitrarily change how we apply known physics? Look, it's not like we are just picking starting points out of the air on a whim, instead, the dating methods are all based on outside, verified, lines of independent evidence. It's a big pain when creationists misrepresent dating methods by claiming they are based on arbitrary assumptions. It's basically lying.

BUT we should still see the same pattern of consistence in the dates. The only difference would be the number in front of the age

No, we wouldn't. If the methods were based on arbitrary assumptions, they'd give arbitrary results, which would be spread all over many orders of magnititude, from nanoseconds to terayears. Jig, please take a second to google what an order of magnitude is, OK?

Look, we've been through this many times, such as in this thread below, where a creationist ended up having to argue that time isn't real and that because of time warping, Noah may have lived with trilobites.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/

Consistence does not necessitate that your assumptions are valid.

OK, Jig, if that is true, then please answer this simple question:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample, again and again, over thousands of tests on hundreds of samples?"

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Naturalism and materialism saturate today's historical science scene. All conclusions must be naturalistic and if a conclusion is undetermined a naturalistic conclusion is still assumed. Never is supernatural activity thought of as a possible conclusion. This is a huge limitation and certainly can lead to false conclusions.

Glad you realise conclusions can be undermined, because if there is no naturalistic explanation, the evidence will not fit any naturalistic conclusions and any hypotheses proposed will be undermined. As for naturalism and materialism saturating todays science, you say this as if it were a bad thing. Science is a study of the material world of course it is materialistic. It is worth pointing out that throughout church history the way miracles were identified as miraculous was by looking for natural explanations. It was only if there were no natural explanations it was accepted as miraculous.

It is true that we usually see the radiometric evidences being interpreted as having a similar range of dates. This is expected, however, because similar dating material (rocks, bone, etc.) from the same period in the past will obviously have a similar actual age.

What makes you think they are from the same period, or rather, what makes you think objects with different radiometric dates are from different periods if you reject the radiometric dates? But that isn't answering the question. Why do different dating methods produce the same results? Creationists propose (without any evidence) that radioactive decay was faster in past, but why would completely different processes have been faster by the same amount. Uranium Lead depends on the instability of the uranium nucleus, Potassium Argon depend on the nucleus capturing one of the electrons which depend on the electron wave function. Why should these methods yield the same results? If U Pb decayed faster in the past, why should why should K Ar? Even if K Ar was faster in the past why should it be faster by he same amount? Why do these methods yield the same results as varves, tree rings and ice cores?

These test use the same assumptions across the lines. If different assumptions are made in the beginning of these tests we will end up with different ages BUT we should still see the same pattern of consistence in the dates. The only difference would be the number in front of the age.

What assumptions? Naturalism? That is not going to affect the figures. That the rates of decay are unchanged? That is not an assumption it has been tested looking at natural nuclear reactors like Oklo and decay rates in distant supernovae. If is also confirmed by the fact completely unrelated methods arrive at the same result. The only way to start with different assumptions and get a consistent age would be tailoring your assumptions for each dating method so you arrive at the date you decided was the right answer to start with. Fiddling in other words.

Consistence does not necessitate that your assumptions are valid.

The only other ways to arrive at consistent results are sheer luck which becomes less and less likely the more tests you run, or fiddling the results.

 

[gluadys]

Consistent conclusions come from applying consistent philosophy.

However we are speaking of measured dates, not theoretical conclusions. I fail to see how philosophy influences the % of radioactive material in a sample of lava or the number of varves on a lake bed.

In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism (yet, another unfounded foundational belief) assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

You are missing the point that these assumptions consistently make accurate predictions of what is found in nature. If the assumptions were incorrect, why would the proposed conclusions match actual observation?

It is true that we usually see the radiometric evidences being interpreted as having a similar range of dates. This is expected, however, because similar dating material (rocks, bone, etc.) from the same period in the past will obviously have a similar actual age.

They will have a similar actual age, but that doesn't mean they will have a similar measured age. Measurements can be wrong. And if (as YECs have often implied) some super-natural force interfered with the process of radioactive decay in the past, we should assume that ages so measured are wrong, (which is exactly the conclusion they are seeking).

But we should further assume that each one is wrong in some different proportion. The measured ages should not match up with each other, nor with measurements not based on radio-active decay.

The fact that we get consistent dates from all kinds of measurement processes (See Papias' question) is an indication that the natural processes were not subject to supernatural interference.

Consistence does not necessitate that your assumptions are valid.

When certain assumptions lead to consistently correct predictions, the likelihood that the basic assumptions are also correct is highly probable, wouldn't you say?

 

[Jig]

However we are speaking of measured dates, not theoretical conclusions. I fail to see how philosophy influences the % of radioactive material in a sample of lava or the number of varves on a lake bed.

You're right philosophical assumptions do not influence the percent of radioactive material in a sample. However, philosophical assumptions influence how we calculate the date based on the amount and type of radioactive material in a sample.

You are missing the point that these assumptions consistently make accurate predictions of what is found in nature. If the assumptions were incorrect, why would the proposed conclusions match actual observation?

Accurate predictions?

How can you know that your philosophically influenced predictions about the vast past (such as a prediction of what you presume to have occurred ten million years ago) are accurate? No one was there to observe it.

They will have a similar actual age, but that doesn't mean they will have a similar measured age. Measurements can be wrong. And if (as YECs have often implied) some super-natural force interfered with the process of radioactive decay in the past, we should assume that ages so measured are wrong, (which is exactly the conclusion they are seeking).

But we should further assume that each one is wrong in some different proportion. The measured ages should not match up with each other, nor with measurements not based on radio-active decay.

You are correct. Having a similar actual age doesn't necessarily mean that the methods of measurement will produce similar measured age. But in our current situation, I believe they have. Remember your conclusion here is only true if what you assumed in your comment is true: that each sample would produce uneven proportionate results because of the supernatural interference. But many YECs would argue that the entire Earth at several points in the past was supernaturally affected at the same time. Consuming creation as a whole. All samples would be affected evenly and not differently. Such events would be the Fall, a global Flood, etc. This implies that a measuring method producing unknowingly wrong results would still find consistency with other methods as long as the primary philosophical foundations stayed the same as well.

The fact that we get consistent dates from all kinds of measurement processes (See Papias' question) is an indication that the natural processes were not subject to supernatural interference.

Okay, let's look at Papias' question.

Jig, sorry, that's a massive understatement. First, the various dating methods are not all radioactive - they include a wide range of completely different methods, including tree rings, oxidation rates, layers of yearly sediment, yearly coral growth, historical records, and so on. Next, all of these methods do no allow for widely divergent interpretations. It's not like judging whether art is good or bad, there are objective methods that are not based on one person's subjective interpretation.

I understand that not all dating methods are radioactive. However, it is these dating methods that I feel have made the largest assumptions. The other dating methods you provide here such as dendrochronology and coral growth (which make assumptions I find reasonable) do not span far enough back into the past and can do nothing to support radioactive dating of material supposedly millions of years old.

 

[Papias]

jig wrote:

I understand that not all dating methods are radioactive. However, it is these dating methods that I feel have made the largest assumptions.

OK, then, what radioactive dating assumptions in particular do you disagree with? Could you please list them, and why you disagree with them? I know you must be quite familiar with them, because you wouldn't disagree with something you don't understand. We often see YEC's say that this or that science is wrong, but when questioned it soon becomes clear that they are clueless about what they are talking about. I'm sure you aren't one of those.

The other dating methods you provide here such as dendrochronology and coral growth (which make assumptions I find reasonable) do not span far enough back into the past and can do nothing to support radioactive dating of material supposedly millions of years old.

So then you agree that ages found by the methods of dendrochronology, varves, ice cores, coral layers, obsidian hydration and such are accurate and reliable dates, especially since these date confirm each other too?

Also, you ignored much of my post, and in particular didn't answer this:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample, again and again, over thousands of tests on hundreds of samples?"


Looking forward to your response -


Papias

 

[Jig]

OK, then, what radioactive dating assumptions in particular do you disagree with? Could you please list them, and why you disagree with them? I know you must be quite familiar with them, because you wouldn't disagree with something you don't understand. We often see YEC's say that this or that science is wrong, but when questioned it soon becomes clear that they are clueless about what they are talking about. I'm sure you aren't one of those.

Currently today's naturalists have been hard-pressed to discover variation in radioactive decay rates in the past century. I agree with this observation. Nevertheless, these experiments—of necessity—can only be conducted in the observable present. I pointed out that radiometric dating is based on several unprovable assumptions. You asked which ones. One assumption is that the decay rates of radioactive isotopes have remained consistently constant over billions of years, however, it's impossible to definitively know that decay rates may have not varied significantly in the distant past at times far remote from the realm of observable science. All we know is that their are constant now and have been for several thousand years.

This assumption has a philosophical foundation within the philosophy of naturalism. This belief is called gradualism . This principal is rooted in uniformitarianism which assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe - even distant stars.

Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So then you agree that ages found by the methods of dendrochronology, varves, ice cores, coral layers, obsidian hydration and such are accurate and reliable dates, especially since these date confirm each other too?

Dendrochronology has its own set of assumptions as well. I believe that the assumptions made with dendrochronology and most of these "shorter period" dating methods are not as dangerous to believe because they do not necessarily stretch beyond unobservable history. While we are able to reasonably study history back several thousands of years, this becomes increasingly difficult and eventually impossible - such as with dates moving beyond millions of years. Dendrochronology, coral growth, ice cores, etc. truly only deal with "shorter" periods of time (usually many thousands of years) and can not be used to verify dates much higher - like the age of rocks.

They confirm each other because the basis used to interpret the results are based on similar assumptions. However, these assumptions can be verified within a time frame that has a large amount of historicity. It can be reasonably known how trees have grown over the last few thousand years - because humans have been around to tell us. This is in contrast to the idea that we can know how rocks have formed over millions of years outside of observable history.

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample, again and again, over thousands of tests on hundreds of samples?"

First off, it depends on the sample. I'd like for you to suggest one we can both focus on. I do not like how you classify all these methods together. Dendrochronology and ice cores are not truly similar to radiometric dating - they can not be used to "agree" with a date of millions of years.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:
This assumption has a philosophical foundation within the philosophy of naturalism. This belief is called gradualism . This principal is rooted in uniformitarianism which assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe - even distant stars.


OK, then your beef is not with radioactive dating, but rather with the assumption that natural laws have not changed. Some radioactive dating spans very short times of years or months, using short lived isotopes, and more to the point, many dating techniques (Geomagnetic polarity, electron spin, etc) go well into deep time without being radioactive. There are assumptions in radioactive dating, but you haven't listed any that apply only to radioactive dating.

So with that clear, it means that you are putting more weight in written data than in the idea that when we observe physical laws operating everywhere and at all times we can measure as being the same, that the do so beyond those also. While that is something that "feels natural" to most people, it's not so clearly a good idea when one thinks about it. For instance, we have written history of gold eating ants, atlantis, chimeras, sea serpents, and so on. Basically, it sounds like you are saying that Homer's odyssey is more reliable than the forensics at OJ's trial (for whom no one was around to see).

Worse, you are being selective in your application of that. You readily accept most applications of that - such as using newton's gravitation to calculate the motions of asteroids and our moon beyond observation, or the idea that an antibiotic that works in the lab should be given to humans, and so on. Basically, much of your daily life uses that assumption (including the idea that I'm even a human at a computer, and not an alien from zerkazatoza), yet when it means you need to change the interpretation in one place, you balk. Do you see that inconsistancy?

I believe that the assumptions made with dendrochronology and most of these "shorter period" dating methods are not as dangerous to believe because they do not necessarily stretch beyond unobservable history.

I do not like how you classify all these methods together. Dendrochronology and ice cores are not truly similar to radiometric dating - they can not be used to "agree" with a date of millions of years.

That's simply false - they do stretch beyond (I assume you mean "observable") observable history. Amino racimezation goes to
asdfaround 500,000 years, as does obsidian hydration. Ice cores go to around 200,000 years, geomagnetic polarity goes to 200 million years, and so on. Notice that these are well beyond the radioactive dating from C14. Plus, "observable history" is simply written records, right (unless you've got some pretty old videotape). Again we are back to the observation that you are claiming to put more credibilty in cyclops than in the assumption you use in your daily life all the time.

Also, so then you agree that these other dating methods, which you have "less of a problem with" still show that a literally reading of Genesis doesn't match the real world? Dendrochronology goes back 10,000 years, far before the supposed flood in 2450 BC or so. The same goes for varves - Lake Baikal has millions of these annual layers, and there is plenty of other methods that show much more than 4,500 years of history - including, in fact, your written records. (Written records themselves show that a literal reading of Genesis doesn't fit the real world).

So what's the point in denying radioactive dating?

They confirm each other because the basis used to interpret the results are based on similar assumptions.

Really? How is the assumption that small particles settle more slowly than coarse gravel a similar assumption to "tree rings grow one ring a year", or the assumption that the half life of C14 was 5,700 years? How could any of those cause the same ages to be obtained?

First off, it depends on the sample. I'd like for you to suggest one we can both focus on. I do not like how you classify all these methods together. Dendrochronology and ice cores are not truly similar to radiometric dating - they can not be used to "agree" with a date of millions of years.

OK, here's one that shows dendrochronolgy, varves and other methods agreeing with radiometric dating over dozens of samples.

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/the-age-of-rocks-not-the-rock-of-ages



Papias

 

[gluadys]

You're right philosophical assumptions do not influence the percent of radioactive material in a sample. However, philosophical assumptions influence how we calculate the date based on the amount and type of radioactive material in a sample.

Accurate predictions?

How can you know that your philosophically influenced predictions about the vast past (such as a prediction of what you presume to have occurred ten million years ago) are accurate? No one was there to observe it.

Because the observations of what IS there match the theoretical predictions of what should be there. Philosophy can't create observations at will that agree with the philosophy.

When I was in high school physicists were still debating big bang vs. steady state theory. The question was still theoretical, (philosophical if you like). Why does no physicist today take steady state theory seriously?

It is not as if anyone time-travelled back to see what actually happened. It is because evidence turned up IN THE PRESENT which we can see and examine today, that could only exist if big bang rather than steady state theory is correct.

You are correct. Having a similar actual age doesn't necessarily mean that the methods of measurement will produce similar measured age. But in our current situation, I believe they have. Remember your conclusion here is only true if what you assumed in your comment is true: that each sample would produce uneven proportionate results because of the supernatural interference. But many YECs would argue that the entire Earth at several points in the past was supernaturally affected at the same time.

That's irrelevant. The same event would not affect different processes in the same way. At least you would also have to show why the event would affect all natural clocks so that they would not only be wrong, but all point to the same wrong date.

That's a pretty improbable assumption. Why would the same event alter magnetism, plate tectonics, alpha decay and beta decay so that they would continue to be consistent with each other? Volcanic activity resets radiometric clocks of minerals melted in the lava, but would have a different effect on atmospheric carbon and presumably would not affect varves in a distant lake at all. A flood should wipe out varves, but have no discernable effect on C14 dating. And neither event is likely to be tied into a reversal of magnetic orientation.

I understand that not all dating methods are radioactive. However, it is these dating methods that I feel have made the largest assumptions. The other dating methods you provide here such as dendrochronology and coral growth (which make assumptions I find reasonable) do not span far enough back into the past and can do nothing to support radioactive dating of material supposedly millions of years old.

Papias has already answered this. I have nothing to add.

 

[Jig]

OK, then your beef is not with radioactive dating, but rather with the assumption that natural laws have not changed.

True, though my main objective up until now has been to point out the many assumptions that are being made by all the current dating methods. I also see multiple problems with how the evidence is interpreted once the test results are gathered.

There exists within the scientific community an interpretive framework that drives the interpretation of the results. You provided a graph in your last post. The arrangement does not surprise me. I can see why you feel this consistency supports your position. However, each dating method is not independently calibrated. The results agree for the most part because differences are incorporated into a calibration curve. When this calibration curve is applied to the results, they will obviously agree. No number or test is accepted on its own. They are compared to each other and interpreted accordingly to fit within the long-age belief system.

I'll now show an example of how dendrochronology, though with they own separate assumptions, is dependent on other methods and philosophical assumptions.

Scientist use carbon-14 to decide how old dead trees are because you can’t tell the age of an isolated dead log. Then they match the tree rings between logs to get a long record of tree rings. But ring matching is very subjective because the pattern of rings is not so distinctive and a variety of matches is possible. Naturally, the matches are chosen that make the best calibration curve. They also assume that these trees only grew one ring per year, but that was never observed. The trees in the ‘dry climate’ are chosen because they have the most rings, but it turns out that is most likely because they grew multiple rings per year. Because the environment is so dry they tend to grow a ring whenever there is rainfall. Similar trees growing in the valleys where the environment is wetter have many less rings. Very likely there were as many as a half-dozen growth rings per year on such trees during the post-Flood when global climate fluctuations were extreme. They count the rings and calibrate the results until they nicely fit the curve.

Tree ring calibration exercises are not independent confirmation of carbon-14, but dependent on it.

 

[coolguybrad]

The fact that any of you have anything to discuss is proof alone to me that the bible isn't all its cracked up to be, scientifically, and creationism in schools should be rejected all together (if creationism was a fact in any way whatsoever, wouldn't it be easy to validate?). Without the bible, people wouldn't be making ANY OF THESE CLAIMS ABOUT CREATIONISM IN THE FIRST PLACE!


I mean....if God truly wanted His words to be scientifically interpreted one way....this discussion wouldn't be here.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

True, though my main objective up until now has been to point out the many assumptions that are being made by all the current dating methods.

Jig, you've pointed out the one assumption that the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are constant in all places and times. You just said you've pointed out "many assumptions". What others have you pointed out that you disagree with?

I'll now show an example of how dendrochronology, though with they own separate assumptions, is dependent on other methods and philosophical assumptions.

Scientist use carbon-14 to decide how old dead trees are because you can’t tell the age of an isolated dead log. Then they match the tree rings between logs to get a long record of tree rings.

I understand that you are speaking the truth as you know it, and that you have an honest reason to doubt these dating methods. When someone finds out that what a Christian, or worse, a pastor told them is a falsehood, they feel lied to, and naturally doubt anything else that person said. That's why creationism is more damaging to Christianity that Dawkins or other atheists could ever dream of being.

Jig, you've just told us a falsehood. The rings from one log are matched up to those on another log, and C14, or any other dating method, has NOTHING to do with it. Dendrochronology would be done the same as it is today is no other dating method existed. C14 is NOT used to place isolated logs, because only non-isolated logs are used in Dendrochronology.

Actual Dendrochronology is done by using one log to span to another log, then to another, and so on, for the whole sequence.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...x4GNQ28&t=1&usg=__ZJkZZO_gK7GdHXKkvb7cUVCxfKk=

But ring matching is very subjective because the pattern of rings is not so distinctive and a variety of matches is possible.

Again, simply false. A long sequence is like a bar code, and the odds of an identical sequence or even a close one are extremely low. A moments reflection shows this, even if you use the simpler idea of long vs short rings (actual rings are more gradual, given even better precision). Try it yourself - flip a coin 20 times, and see how often you get exactly HHTTHTTHHTTTTTTHHHTT in that order (odds - 1 in 2^20, or 1 in a million). That's only for a 20 year sequence, most DC series are longer.

The trees in the ‘dry climate’ are chosen because they have the most rings, but it turns out that is most likely because they grew multiple rings per year. Because the environment is so dry they tend to grow a ring whenever there is rainfall. Similar trees growing in the valleys where the environment is wetter have many less rings.

Source? my understanding is that dry environments may sometimes prevent rings, making dendrochronology dates too short, not too long. Besides, if that were significant, then the other independant methods wouldn't confirm it.

There exists within the scientific community an interpretive framework that drives the interpretation of the results.

Each test is based on physical principles. There is no "framework" to alter a test to give differet results than what it does, if such a thing were even reasonable. Could you please explain how a "framework" would cause someone to change a measurement? You do know that the conclusion of a long history of the earth was reached back in the 1800's, before Darwin, and most of the scientists who did that work were Christians (including the main person being a Protestant Minister, Segewick), who were initially operating using assumptions of flood geology, right? You might want to read up on the Rev. Adam Segewick.

Tree ring calibration exercises are not independent confirmation of carbon-14, but dependent on it.

It is worth your time to look into other things creationists have told you. You may have been lied to on other points in addition that one.

Papias

 

[Jig]

Jig, you've pointed out the one assumption that the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are constant in all places and times. You just said you've pointed out "many assumptions". What others have you pointed out that you disagree with?

Ontological naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism, gradualism, and Darwinianism, to name "many".

I understand that you are speaking the truth as you know it, and that you have an honest reason to doubt these dating methods. When someone finds out that what a Christian, or worse, a pastor told them is a falsehood, they feel lied to, and naturally doubt anything else that person said. That's why creationism is more damaging to Christianity that Dawkins or other atheists could ever dream of being.

Are you serious?? Appealing to my emotions? I thought this was a debate - what you just said has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim I have made.

Jig, you've just told us a falsehood. The rings from one log are matched up to those on another log, and C14, or any other dating method, has NOTHING to do with it. Dendrochronology would be done the same as it is today is no other dating method existed. C14 is NOT used to place isolated logs, because only non-isolated logs are used in Dendrochronology.

Actual Dendrochronology is done by using one log to span to another log, then to another, and so on, for the whole sequence.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...x4GNQ28&t=1&usg=__ZJkZZO_gK7GdHXKkvb7cUVCxfKk=



Again, simply false. A long sequence is like a bar code, and the odds of an identical sequence or even a close one are extremely low. A moments reflection shows this, even if you use the simpler idea of long vs short rings (actual rings are more gradual, given even better precision). Try it yourself - flip a coin 20 times, and see how often you get exactly HHTTHTTHHTTTTTTHHHTT in that order (odds - 1 in 2^20, or 1 in a million). That's only for a 20 year sequence, most DC series are longer.

I made mention of calibration curves and how other dating methods are dependent on others. I decided to look at what Wikipedia had within their radiocarbon dating page. Look what I found:

On the necessity of calibration curves: "A raw date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere . In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.
Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities."

"A calibration curve must sometimes be combined with contextual analysis, because there is not always a direct relationship between age and carbon-14 content."

On calibration methods: Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits). The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results.

Though this page is pro-"old age", I believe it clearly states the point I was trying to drive home in my last post.

Source? my understanding is that dry environments may sometimes prevent rings, making dendrochronology dates too short, not too long. Besides, if that were significant, then the other independant methods wouldn't confirm it.

Source - sure thing: Matthews, M., Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines, Journal of Creation 20(3):95–103, 2006.

Each test is based on physical principles. There is no "framework" to alter a test to give differet results than what it does, if such a thing were even reasonable.

If there was no framework then calibration curves would not be needed.

Could you please explain how a "framework" would cause someone to change a measurement?

One is the calibration curves themselves.

You do know that the conclusion of a long history of the earth was reached back in the 1800's, before Darwin, and most of the scientists who did that work were Christians (including the main person being a Protestant Minister, Segewick), who were initially operating using assumptions of flood geology, right? You might want to read up on the Rev. Adam Segewick.

What is with you and logical fallacies? This one is seems to be in the form of an appeal to composition, with subtle hints of an appeal to belief.

It is worth your time to look into other things creationists have told you. You may have been lied to on other points in addition that one.

Papias

It is worth your time to look into other things evolutionists have told you. You may have been lied to on other points in addition to this one.

 

[Preecher]

You are aware, of course, that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

And, yet, evolution is still true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jig]

The above post quoted you saying this and added a bit of Scripture, but I'd like to add something.

You are aware, of course, that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

Papias

Evolution is a true proven fact depending how you define the term "evolution". I understand why people think Creationists do not believe in evolution, but they do. I, for one, fully believe that evolution occurs - both in natural and artificial selections, mutations, gene flows, and genetic drifts. Examples would be the various dog breeds, anti-biotic resistance, and the various sizes of the sparrow population in North America.

The problem is not in the observable evolution that truly does occur, the issue is in the non-observable evolution that Darwinianism presupposes. Examples would be believing reptiles evolved into birds over millions of years, apes evolved into humans over millions of years, etc.

These latter examples have not been observed and are not true proven scientific fact - merely philosophical deductions.

Also, saying that there are mountains of empirical absolute evidences for evolution is a bit nonsensical. The same evidence is equally shared by all positions. Each position then interprets this evidence based on their respective philosophical foundations and assumptions.

 

[Preecher]

And, yet, evolution is still true.

-CryptoLutheran

In "six days"?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

In "six days"?

No. But I don't believe the Creation account is to be read as a literal-historical narrative. Nor do I regard that reference in Exodus to prove that the Creation account in Genesis 1 is literal-historical.

The universe is about 14 billions years old and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Papias]

jig wrote:

my main objective up until now has been to point out the many assumptions that are being made by all the current dating methods.

OK, let's look at those from your recent post:

Ontological naturalism,

Is not an assumption used in science or in any dating methods. You are confusing it with methodological naturalism, which is not only fully compatible with Christianity, but more so is an originally Christian idea. I have the same problem with ontological naturalism you do, but that doesn't have anything to do with dating methods.

materialism

Which is not an assumption of any dating methods, and is not required to do science, and like ontological naturalism, is not relevant to this discussion.

uniformitarianism

Is the assumption we discussed earlier, that the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are constant in all places and times. While that is an assumption, it is at least the most conservative assumption possible. To understand the data any other way, as you apparently are arguing for, jig, is to assume that that the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are changed in places and times into specific other values jig has chosen, which have never been measured anywhere, at any time. I'll point out that my assumption(blue) is not a huge assumption compared to yours (in brown).

gradualism

By what exactly do you mean here? That everything is gradual? That's certainly not assumed - the K-T extinction is anything but gradual, as are many other things found by science. You'll have to be more clear about this assumption before it's clear what your objecting to.

Darwinianism

Again, you'll have to be more clear. Darwinism is used in a number of different ways by different people. If you mean the idea that some species evolve from other species, I think we agree on that being a fact, so it must not be that.

have not been observed and are not true proven scientific fact - merely philosophical deductions

As many people have pointed out many times, scientific facts are based on evidence, not on whether or not someone observed them happening. So we don't have to throw out all the evidence in the OJ trial, the entire field of forensics, anthropology, and so on. I don't know where creationists got the idea that they are to put more credibility in the Qu'ran than in the physical evidence, but they seem to repeat it over and over even after being corrected. How about we keep track of points, as there are many that could be easily missed.

Jig, (question 1) do you recognize that scientific evidence, and the determination of a "fact" do not require that a person witness the original occurance being studied?

I made mention of calibration curves and how other dating methods are dependent on others.

The fine tuning of C14 uses other methods, but that is for known reasons and doesn't prevent falsifiability. The other methods are independent. Jig, I notice you did not agree about C14 being used to root "isolated logs". Question 2. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct, and that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results.

Jig, all of that from the wiki page is correct and supports the reliability of C14 dating, and it's falsifiability. Please do not play word games. By "significantly", it means "as much as 10 or 15 %", not orders of magnitude. By "misleading results", the wiki page means "off by as much as 10 or 15%", not "by a factor or two or more". Note that a factor of much more than two would be needed to fit the evidence into a literal reading of Genesis.

You may have noticed that the deviation from the line is usually about 10%, in the same direction, and most importantly, is known and corrected for. So if a C14 date is, say 30,000 years (uncalibrated), then the actual date is close to 27,000 (calibrated). That's a far cry from your claim, that that 30,000 date is really 2,000 years - the graph shows that such a claim is clearly untenable.

So basically, you initially claimed that the method were dependant on each other, and adjusted to match each other. When shown that they weren't, you claimed that because C14 is calibrated with a change of around 10% using other methods, all the other methods are determined by each other, and not independant as they actually are. This leads me to question #3 - Do you recognize that dedrochronology is independent, and that varves are independent, and that speleotherms are independent, and that coral is independent?

If there was no framework then calibration curves would not be needed.

You are calling the use of other methods to fine tune the last few percent of C14 dating a "framework". That is a stretch by itself. On top of that, what framework, specifically, alters the measurement of varves? What alters the measurement of dendrochronolgy? (Q4)

Matthews, M., Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines, Journal of Creation 20(3):95–103, 2006.

Please, a source from a real journal. You know, one that is peer reviewed. Let's list the request for a real source from a peer reviewed journal as Q5.

This one is seems to be in the form of an appeal to composition, with subtle hints of an appeal to belief.

You were claiming that the idea of an old earth is the result of using a "framework" that is anti-Christian. I was pointing out that the fact that the earth is old was first established by Christian, operating explicitly in a Christian framework. Q6 - Do you know about the Rev. Adam Segewick?

I thought this was a debate

I thought it was a discussion forum where Christians could talk with other Christians in the spirit of goodwill. I hope nothing I've said in this post sounds mean or rude. I'm sorry that you saw this as an antagonistic debate - let's save that for when we talk with atheists about whether or not Jesus existed, OK?

Papias