• 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.

radiometric dating

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No problem. Step outside.

Noah's world isn't there. Step outside the box.
Really? Then why doesn't any Christian ever give any?

They do.

Sure I do. You have been shown.
You offer only what is here in the present, and show nothing of any forces existing in the past. You only believe.


I already told you how. Don't tell me you weren't paying attention again!
Nope. You claim it would not be there. Even if you had a reputation for telling the truth, that would need to be supported.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Noah's world isn't there. Step outside the box.

Nope, Noah never existed. He is a morality tale and that is about it. This has been know for over 200 years.


Nope, you don't even know what evidence is so you are in no position to make this claim.

You offer only what is here in the present, and show nothing of any forces existing in the past. You only believe.

Nope, we can observe the past in several ways.

Nope. You claim it would not be there. Even if you had a reputation for telling the truth, that would need to be supported.

It is still there. You can go back and read it again. Do you want links from a source? You simply did not understand. That is not my fault.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟244,477.00
Faith
Seeker
this could also be caused by something that is filtered by earths atmosphere too.
it's unfortunate i don't have the entire paper.

I couldn't find the original paper, but I did find this in an astract from another paper that references it.

Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radionuclide half-lives vary systematically over a ±0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2=2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth–Sun distances. We observe no systematic oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ±0.02%.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,473
769
✟104,716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is usually the way that one reads about radiometric dating.

So you admit you have no idea how many unfavorable dates were discarded before publication. Yet somehow you're sure they are the exception rather than the rule.

Are you proposing some deep dark conspiracy? Really?

Huh? It's not a conspiracy if the geochronologist begins the research with total conviction of what the "correct date" already is. It's simply confirmation bias of someone following their beliefs.

If he finds "bad dates" that he *knows* are incorrect, why shouldn't he simply blame nature and discard them? Unless the study is specifically on evaluating perceived contaminants. But the purpose of most studies is to attempt to establish useful dating models of a particular region.

You do not seem to realize that scientists check out each other's work all of the time with the hope of showing that the work is in error.

They typically only check what is published. And there is no rule that a geochronologist must publish every gathered result, especially if he feels they are negligible because of contamination.

And what potential "error" are you referring to here? There are no errors. Either it's a "good date" or it was "contamination".

The number one way to get famous in science is to come up with new information and hopefully a new theory.

In reality, this is true only so long as your new theory fits comfortably within the established evolutionary orthodoxy. Everyone knows that is something not to be questioned. It is not to be touched with a hundred foot pole or even hinted at. Again, everyone knows this.


The number two way to get famous is to show that there are serious flaws in accepted work, and more scientists actually do this. Why is there no real evidence that scientists are wrong?

What's to show being wrong? What potential flaws?

The flaws are simply 'contamination' like I already said. How do you know they're contamination? Because they don't give you the ages you're looking for, of course. Even multiple consilient "bad dates" can be discarded as a chance event. Any amount of unfavorable data can be discarded. It's a pseudo-scientific dream come true. It dovetails beautifully with the rest of evolutionary creationism which generally lacks any robust potential falsification structure.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,523
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I couldn't find the original paper, but I did find this in an astract from another paper that references it.
a link to the paper would be nice, and was this experiment subjected to solar flare events?

this is the major problem with my source, the paper itself is missing.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nope, Noah never existed.
You are not able to know that. Abraham was a contemporary according to Jewish tradition with Noah. They even know where Abraham's tomb is. Gong


Nope, we can observe the past in several ways.
Says you. When you look at something that is old, however, we see all you do is spray it with your beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You are not able to know that. Abraham was a contemporary according to Jewish tradition with Noah. They even know where Abraham's tomb is. Gong

Wrong. Gong gong gong gong.. Why do you post such laughably wrong nonsense?

Says you. When you look at something that is old, however, we see all you do is spray it with your beliefs.


You are projecting again. Those are your flaws not mine.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So you admit you have no idea how many unfavorable dates were discarded before publication. Yet somehow you're sure they are the exception rather than the rule.

Wrong. I explained why unfavorable dates are the exception rather than the rule. What part didn't you understand? I will try to use small words.

Huh? It's not a conspiracy if the geochronologist begins the research with total conviction of what the "correct date" already is. It's simply confirmation bias of someone following their beliefs.

They do not base their knowledge upon an unfounded conviction. Like dad you are projecting your flaws upon others.

If he finds "bad dates" that he *knows* are incorrect, why shouldn't he simply blame nature and discard them? Unless the study is specifically on evaluating perceived contaminants. But the purpose of most studies is to attempt to establish useful dating models of a particular region.

Once again, if he finds bad dates, he will still write it up. Scientists are incredibly honest. Far more honest than your preacher for example. If scientists get caught lying they are through. If a creationist is caught lying he gets a pat on the back from his colleagues.


They typically only check what is published. And there is no rule that a geochronologist must publish every gathered result, especially if he feels they are negligible because of contamination.

There is no rule, but again if he is caught lying he will be in big trouble. Unlike creationists scientists are honest. You would not lose your job if you were caught lying. The would.

And what potential "error" are you referring to here? There are no errors. Either it's a "good date" or it was "contamination".

Not necessarily contamination. If the sample is heavily weather there could have been a loss of either parent or daughter product. Loss of material is usually not called "contamination".

In reality, this is true only so long as your new theory fits comfortably within the established evolutionary orthodoxy. Everyone knows that is something not to be questioned. It is not to be touched with a hundred foot pole or even hinted at. Again, everyone knows this.
Amazing! You know nothing of science. You could not be more wrong. Scientists we learn the fastest and one gets more fame, glory, and money if one overturns the current paradigm. Once again you are attributing your flaws upon others.

What's to show being wrong? What potential flaws?

The flaws are simply 'contamination' like I already said. How do you know they're contamination? Because they don't give you the ages you're looking for, of course. Even multiple consilient "bad dates" can be discarded as a chance event. Any amount of unfavorable data can be discarded. It's a pseudo-scientific dream come true. It dovetails beautifully with the rest of evolutionary creationism which generally lacks any robust potential falsification structure.


Again, this is actually a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. You are making false charges that you cannot substantiate. And no, this is just not the case. You can repeat our mistake a thousand times and it will still be false.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,824
3,135
London, UK
✟1,122,471.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That depends upon the dating method. Perhaps the easiest to understand is that of Potassium-Argon dating. Argon is an inert gas and will be excluded when a crystal forms. So we know that the starting amount in a crystal will be zero. It does not travel easily through a crystal once it forms, unless there was weathering of the sample and that is observable.

We can measure the amount of parent material left, that added to the daughter material and multiplied by a constant since only roughly 20% of radioactive potassium turns into argon, the rest becomes calcium, and this percentage is well known and well measured, will give us the total amount of both parent and daughter. Other tests have ways of determining the original amount. The original amounts are never assumed.

A big assumption here has to with the obsession of dating. We assume x is so old because it has so much parent element and so much daughter element. But if things were configured as they are for the overall effect of the mix chosen then the presence or absence of parents or daughters makes no difference to the dating at all. The naturalistic assumption is that the rocks tell us when they were created and the Creationist assumption is that God told the rocks when they were created.


Of course he could if he wanted to but then he would be misleading people. Very few Christians believe in a dishonest God.

It is only a lie if we accept a naturalistic set of assumptions about causation and progression. If God created as he did for higher reasons then these reasons are what need to be searching for and the rocks tell us nothing about dates cause they were created in a mixed state or aged for higher reasons than reductive materialism can comprehend
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I suspect I've seen a lot more exciting, unexpected experimental results that seemed to contradict well-established physics than you have. They usually go away; in fact, almost all of them go away. Certainly often enough to risk five bucks on. (And if this one proves to be correct, it will be exciting enough that I wouldn't mind losing the $5.)

Is this the paper originally cited by "whois" on the first page (post #6) of the thread? If so, I've been citing parts of that paper throughout this thread. Here's the link.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3156.pdf
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
A big assumption here has to with the obsession of dating. We assume x is so old because it has so much parent element and so much daughter element.

In the early beginnings and development of radiometric dating methods there were assumptions that no excess daughter isotope present. However, with today's continued improved technology, methods, and understanding; such assumptions are no longer made, as any excess or even diffused daughter isotopes can and are now detectable and quantified.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
i am not drawing conclusions, the article is.
the article specifically states nuclear decay is significantly affected by solar activity.

Significantly? Perhaps you should reread it. It is nowhere close to the orders of magnitude needed for an Earth that is a few thousand years old. On top of that, you have the problem of the added heat from such highly accelerated decay rates.

At worst, dates would be off by 1 or 2%.

what is unknown (because the paper itself is missing) is the cause, or causes.
it's certainly related to solar activity but the exact cause, proton density, magnetic flux, etc, isn't presented.
i wouldn't know, because i'm not a geologist.

It could also be intstrument error, like the case with the "faster than light neutrinos" a while back.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
A big assumption here has to with the obsession of dating. We assume x is so old because it has so much parent element and so much daughter element. But if things were configured as they are for the overall effect of the mix chosen then the presence or absence of parents or daughters makes no difference to the dating at all. The naturalistic assumption is that the rocks tell us when they were created and the Creationist assumption is that God told the rocks when they were created.

What type of evidence could not be thrown out on such a basis?

How do you know that DNA at a crime scene really came from the perpetrator? God could have put it there just for effect.

How do you know fingerprints at a crime scene really came from the fingertips of the perpetrator? God could have put those there too.

It is a silly argument. In the end, you are faced with literal mountains of evidence that is consistent with an old Earth, and your only explanation is that God could have faked it.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
What type of evidence could not be thrown out on such a basis?

How do you know that DNA at a crime scene really came from the perpetrator? God could have put it there just for effect.

How do you know fingerprints at a crime scene really came from the fingertips of the perpetrator? God could have put those there too.

It is a silly argument. In the end, you are faced with literal mountains of evidence that is consistent with an old Earth, and your only explanation is that God could have faked it.


Yes such consistent information - like every ruin 1,000 years old buried - when it is claimed strata takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to form. Yet we know for a fact ruins buried in the last 1,000 years did not take hundreds of thousands of years to become buried.

Again - the evidence does not fit what is claimed as fact in the slightest.

There is no need at all to assume a young earth - the Bible does not even hint at this.

Genesis 2:2: "and the earth "became (hayah) desolate and void...

Only those who mistranslated the Hebrew words come to the incorrect conclusion.

Strong's Hebrew: 1961. ????? (hayah) -- to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Miracles from long ago - not a mere few thousand.

Psalm 77:11 I will remember the deeds of the LORD; yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+102:25&version=KJV

There is no justification to preach a young earth. Only man and the animals with him are of a recent creation.

Even the two words describing the creation of the Earth and heavens - and that of man are not the same.

Genesis 1:1 Interlinear: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

Genesis 1:27 Interlinear: And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

See:

Hebrew Concordance: b?·rê·?î? -- 5 Occurrences

Hebrew Concordance: way·yi?·r? -- 2 Occurrences

One implies from nothing - the other from pre-existing material.

The dinosaurs lived long before man and were wiped out in the catastrophe that made the earth desolate and waste. Those who attempt to interpret a young age are just as much in error as those who interpret fossils that stay the same from the oldest one found to the youngest one found as pointing to evolution.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,473
769
✟104,716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wrong. I explained why unfavorable dates are the exception rather than the rule. What part didn't you understand? I will try to use small words.

lol... You baldly asserted unfavorable dates are the exception with zero attempt of backing it up.

They do not base their knowledge upon an unfounded conviction. Like dad you are projecting your flaws upon others.

Where did I say it is unfounded? I only said they are convicted of it. Try not putting words in your opponent's mouth if you can manage it.

Once again, if he finds bad dates, he will still write it up.

Channeling your psychic abilities?

Scientists are incredibly honest.

You're really giving yourself away here with this laughable display of naive scientist-worship.


If scientists get caught lying they are through.

Possibly if it is something that can potentially be caught. Making up non-falsifiable just-so evolution stories however is actively encouraged.

Here is what a couple people have to say who are actually in a position to know.

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarked:
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#cite_note-51
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said:


The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_review


But since this contradicts your benevolent scientist fantasy, it will be in one ear and out the other.


(By the way, I haven't even claimed any geochronologist is lying. But have fun with that strawman. )


There is no rule, but again if he is caught lying he will be in big trouble.

How is discarding contaminated data "lying" ? You're not making any sense, as usual.

Here is a direct quote from the geochronology literature:

Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because one date or one formation appears to be highly reliable. These remarks would appear to be somewhat obvious, but experience shows that these rules are frequently rejected. (Odin G.S. 1985 pp.42-43)


Odin was a prevalent secular geochronologist. Here he candidly admits that many "bad dates" are discarded from final reports, completely demolishing your entire position.


Here's a related example of subjective data gathering:

In their review of the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic Periods, Forster and Warrington (1985) accepted only forty-five dated items from five hundred separate articles... (Kamo et al. 1996, p.3505)

Gee, 45 out 500. There couldn't be any cherry-picking going on there, could there be?

Sorry about that little interruption from day-dreaming of your benevolent scientists who would choose death over a loss of objectivity. You may now return to your Dawkinsian fantasy.


Not necessarily contamination. If the sample is heavily weather there could have been a loss of either parent or daughter product. Loss of material is usually not called "contamination".

Yes, in other words they can "blame nature" for unfavorable results. They can also say a sample was re-worked into younger or older rocks to explain away a discrepancy.


Amazing! You know nothing of science.

Says the person who worships scientists as transcendental beings.


You could not be more wrong. Scientists we learn the fastest and one gets more fame, glory, and money if one overturns the current paradigm. Once again you are attributing your flaws upon others.

A thing has to have very rigid falsification criteria to be potentially overturned. The evolutionary creation story is not one of those things as I've demonstrated over and over again. It is designed for a near limitless amount of ad-hoc repairs. This is something, like most evolutionists, that you're in denial about.

I've tried to help you come to some understanding of reality with this post. If you go into the "worshipful scientist" nonsense again then I won't waste my time with a response.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟200,004.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I feel I should go into more detail to clear up any confusion:

The earth was already flourishing with life prior to man. Life that has went extinct on several eras, after which all new forms of life arose. It's that gap game back again. Then the last catastrophe struck.


In the oldest manuscripts there is a mark of a pause between the first and second verse. It may be as science tells us, that this globe existed millions of years ago; that it has been the habitation of numerous and varied races of animated beings; and that it has undergone many great destructions and creations before it was brought into its present state: none of these views are in the least discordant with the statement of the inspired historian, that “in beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”


In twenty places in this chapter the verb “was” is used as the equivalent to “became”. The true meaning of the Hebrew word "hayah".


The Earth "became" desolate and waste, (tohu wa bohu - used nowhere else together in the Bible except this verse and two other places, and always when used elsewhere point to a once flourishing condition that was then laid waste - Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23) and darkness overspread the Earth. At this time (man) did not exist prior, nor any of the current animals found with skeletons of modern man, except in a few rare cases as in one or two classes of reptiles and fish that survived this worldwide cataclysm, and the untold number before, told of before science had ever thought of such a thing as possible.


Comet, meteor? Who knows? It is quite accurate when interpreted properly. After unknown periods of time another act of creation occurred, this time with a notable exception, one worth bothering to describe in more detail, unlike any others that may have occurred previously. But then a new creation happened, the waters were separated from the waters (evaporation). "Let there be light...divided the light from the darkness". In Hebrew literally: " divided between the light and between darkness." Where all had previously been darkness due to the destruction, the addition of heat began separating the clouds. The events in the entire chapter are described as if one's viewpoint is from the earth.


It must be noted that the word 'ohr is not the same word used in verse 14 signifying "lights," or "luminaries," ma-'ohr; rather, it signifies "heat." the effect, which immediately followed is described in the name Day, which in Hebrew signifies "warmth."


So heat began penetrating into the depths after God acted, separating the clouds, letting light into the depths, the clouds had been so low as to contact the Earth itself. But heat allowed evaporation and the waters above were separated from the waters below and dry land appeared.


The next is just a twisted version by evolutionists. The creatures in the waters formed first, in Hebrew discourses this includes all microbial and plant life in the seas. Then reptiles and crawling things and finally birds of the air. Then mammals and man. This is where evolution theory got their idea of the order from, the Bible told them long ago. They knew the truth and so modeled their theory upon this same basis. But again, the lack of transitory species makes their interpretation of the events in the Bible suspect. If evolution is indeed correct, where are the transitory species today? Did it only occur in the past? Instead all we see is "Kind after Kind" and different "breeds" or "strains" or "species" within those Kinds. Lines which are "never" crossed. Lines which never become so different we can't recognize they are all of the same Kind. All Felidae are Felidae. All Canidae are Canidae. All Caprinae are Caprinae.

You know of no other thing, even down to the genetic level, which thanks to technological advancements, is showing that tree is nothing but individual distinct bushes, with sideways variation. I.e., different "breeds, or strains, or species, or subspecies, etc.", within that kind - or bush. Never once indicating a transitional form to another "kind". Even after billions of generations and billions of mutations, all E. coli are still E. coli, and always will be. All Felidae, no matter how many times we breed them or even mutate them in the lab, will always be Felidae.

Every past form of life sprang from nowhere, lived for a time, different breeds of that kind prospering, then went extinct due to cataclysmic actions. In its place all new life once again sprang up, to again repeat the cycle. The Bible just affirms this, when it told you of the earth becoming desolate and waste, and the darkness that became upon it, encompassing it around. Hence the dinosaurs died out. It then described the "sixth" such event, when man himself was created.

5 of them - count them - of which we are the sixth creative act.

Extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth's five mass extinction events
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wrong. Gong gong gong gong.. Why do you post such laughably wrong nonsense?

I am correct. Jewish tradition does have Abraham as a contemporary with Noah. They even claim Abraham spent time with Noah.


And yes they do have a tomb where they claim Abraham is buried. It is, if I recall the second holiest site for Israel.
 
Upvote 0