U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 04-04-2009, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Log home in the Appalachians
10,100 posts, read 6,754,193 times
Reputation: 6510

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Based on what I see in Scripture. I believe all was made by God perhaps some 14,000 years ago.
Then how do you account for the Japanese pottery that dates back 16,500 years ago, seems to be about a 2500 year old gap there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2009, 10:48 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptsum View Post
Then how do you account for the Japanese pottery that dates back 16,500 years ago, seems to be about a 2500 year old gap there.
For the same reason that when Radioisotope dating is done on the age of rocks with a known age, those dates miss the mark by a mile. And often, they have been shown to be in error by millions of years. You will never be able to set your watch by Radioisotope dating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 10:56 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Well now this is a little progress, but I'm afraid the earth is much older...Just the history of China confirms that. China History dates back as early as 16th century B.C. and traces the incidents and situations that led to the progress of the world's oldest surviving civilization.

Pre-recorded history you would have to leap much further back than that....China in ancient days was inhabited by Home Erectus, some 1.27 million years ago. Popularly known as the Peking Man.
You do understand that Peking Man is more of a myth, than fact. Especially when you understand there is no evidence that exist today that can be viewed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,985 posts, read 18,582,885 times
Reputation: 9893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
For the same reason that when Radioisotope dating is done on the age of rocks with a known age, those dates miss the mark by a mile. And often, they have been shown to be in error by millions of years. You will never be able to set your watch by Radioisotope dating.
Strange statement...So how do you know the "known age" of the rocks being tested by radioisotope? How were they previously tested to arrive at that "known age"?

Radiometric dating gives the Earth an age of about 4.5 billion years and the Universe an age of about 17 billion years. The accuracy of radiometric dating is often checked by comparing the radiometric date with non-radiometric dates of objects, such as historical accounts, tree rings, ice cores, etc. These results repeatedly demonstrate the validity of radiometric dating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 12:29 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Strange statement...So how do you know the "known age" of the rocks being tested by radioisotope? How were they previously tested to arrive at that "known age"?

Radiometric dating gives the Earth an age of about 4.5 billion years and the Universe an age of about 17 billion years. The accuracy of radiometric dating is often checked by comparing the radiometric date with non-radiometric dates of objects, such as historical accounts, tree rings, ice cores, etc. These results repeatedly demonstrate the validity of radiometric dating.
Radioisotope dating is used to test the age of volcanic rock. In 1992 Dr. Austin collected 15 pounds of dacite from near the top of Mount St. Helens. Using potassium-argon dating, the dacite was given to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA. The lab was not told that the rock was only 10 years old. When their results came back. The age of the rock was determined to be 0.35-2.8 million years old. Numerous other rocks like this have been handed over to labs, and numerous other false dates have come back. If the dates from these labs are millions of years off, and these are from rocks of known age. How many years are they off on rocks of unknown age? Consider the link below.

Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really 1 Million Years Old?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,985 posts, read 18,582,885 times
Reputation: 9893
Your link leads to another gross misrepresentation of science, if not outright fraud by creationists.

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helens, Washington State, USA. Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.

You haven't answered my question...So how do you know the "known age" of the rocks being tested by radioisotope? How were they previously tested to arrive at that "known age"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 7,012,771 times
Reputation: 3631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
For the same reason that when Radioisotope dating is done on the age of rocks with a known age, those dates miss the mark by a mile. And often, they have been shown to be in error by millions of years. You will never be able to set your watch by Radioisotope dating.
Any accepted errors in any dating technique are expressed as a percentage of the total probability of it's finding. Hence, thorium fission track dating of volcanic rocks tells us how old they are since they were first formed, first "formulated", not the age when they, already formed perhaps millions of years ago by heat and pressure from, say, limestone, spewed out of an active volcano. If a method can date back to, say, 16 million years, with an error of 1%, it is thus 16M +/- 16,000.

Then along somes some smart-alex who then tries, stupidly, to say that with an error of 16,000, how can anyone use any dating techniques to date something that's way less than this error rate?

Was never said, C34. If the same system were to date something as, say, 14,525 years old, we who understand such systems of dating would say the date, more correctly, is 14,525 +/- 145 years. You can't apply the error rate from one item (+/- 16,000 years on an item of 16M years' age, for example) and date range to that of another. To do so only shows vast illiteracy on the subject! or an attempt to mislead, as the Chruch and many evangelical groups are known to do.

This is common knowledge amongst those in the know, C34. If you care to cite just who made such an erroneous claim, I'll find them and ask them just what they really meant. And happily post it here.

It's also quite demonstrative of your selective acceptance of science that you, of all people, alternately insist on the inerrant and precise accuracy of your beloved El Toro figurine dating findings. Let me re-quote your statement from above just soz you can't wiggle away too easily...

"You will never be able to set your watch by Radioisotope dating."


But in defence of your over-generalized statement, I completely concur: no dating of an unknown-age item will ever match the accuracy of my wrist watch, which, as you'd expect for a guy like me, is the Casio that automatically receives a signal from Station WWV in Boulder, CO, based on the absolutely inerrantly constant breakdown of the Cesium atom. It's been breakin' down that way since, well, since the Big Bang. Just like potassium-argon complexes, Carbon 14 isotopic conversion (Huh? says C34?) and the tracks of argon or thorium breakdown particles through such things as volcanic obsidian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Radioisotope dating is used to test the age of volcanic rock. In 1992 Dr. Austin collected 15 pounds of dacite from near the top of Mount St. Helens. Using potassium-argon dating, the dacite was given to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA. The lab was not told that the rock was only 10 years old. When their results came back. The age of the rock was determined to be 0.35-2.8 million years old. Numerous other rocks like this have been handed over to labs, and numerous other false dates have come back. If the dates from these labs are millions of years off, and these are from rocks of known age. How many years are they off on rocks of unknown age? Consider the link below.

Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really 1 Million Years Old?
C34, your limits to understanding, coupled with active quote-mining, shows like pants worn too low show the butt crack...

From another site you either chose not to read, or not to show us, in the spirit of intellectual honesty:

"Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date."


So there you have it. The assumption that just because it surfaced 10 years earler, that was also the date of its original formulation.

You know, it's so easy to spot those who just quick-troll the internet, see something, & in their ignorance on the details of a subject, then post it as some sort of "final answer" proof.

I recently saw on CNN a video clip of a vehicle that crashed through a barrier on an overpass. Briefly, it was airborne.

Therefore, I conclude that Ford Pintos can, indeed, fly! Got it on the 'Net, dontcha know?

Literally within seconds I found out all the "inerrant" facts on your doctor Austin, who, it turns out, is an unapologetic voodoo Creationist. We now know he'll stoop to any and all levels of misquote or selective interpretation to make his point. Exactly why, C34, those of us in the know tend to be more skeptical than usual, & assume that any new Creationist claim ("God's Temple Found on The Far Side Of The Moon!!! Proof of God's Wonder and Creativity!") is at least suspect.

Not to mention that, given the quality and growth of the proven body of evidence against any Creation, we know that all new claims of so-called proof are just more bunko designed to get the tithers worked up....

The 'net has also made insta-fools by the thousands. Why don't one of you Creationists take just ten minutes, without frantically Googling for "Cut & Paste" expertise, quick-like, summarize the top ten best techniques for archeological dating, including the worst means for dating organic materials and stunning examples of their mis-use. Hint: you already have one case point, so this assignment is made easier already.

I'll given you a format and example off the top of my head here, based on my understanding:

(off the top of my head...)

"Certain classes of material items reliably accumulate two types of Thorium isotope (as in "version" of...). We know, absolutely, the decay rate of Thorium. Unlike C14 to C12 isotopic decay and transmutation, Thorium leaves it's new version behind, accumulating like a fingerprint at a crime scene. The relative ratios of undecayed to decayed provides a real good estimator of the time since the organic artifsact was last alive and accumulating the Thorium isotopes that occur in many items."

Not applicable to ceramics, rocks, etc. good for bones, tissues frozne into glacial ices, etc.

NOW; your turn. Let's just say, give us 3 techniques and their usses and limitations. Be sure to mention that C14/C12 is very very inappropriate for ceramics, since you're showing us your keen interest and knowledge of these systems...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 02:01 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Your link leads to another gross misrepresentation of science, if not outright fraud by creationists.

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helens, Washington State, USA. Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.

You haven't answered my question...So how do you know the "known age" of the rocks being tested by radioisotope? How were they previously tested to arrive at that "known age"?
The date of the formation of dacite was known. It occured at the time of the eruption. And since we know the time of the eruption. We also know the time the dacite was formed.

And my link does not ignore the fact. That this was just another example of false results being stated as scientific fact from radioisotopic dating.
Only this time, they knew how old the rock was before they handed it over to the lab for testing. No doubt, you would of believed their resuts. And you would of been just as wrong, as you are about the other rocks they claim are millions of years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 02:26 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Any accepted errors in any dating technique are expressed as a percentage of the total probability of it's finding. Hence, thorium fission track dating of volcanic rocks tells us how old they are since they were first formed, first "formulated", not the age when they, already formed perhaps millions of years ago by heat and pressure from, say, limestone, spewed out of an active volcano. If a method can date back to, say, 16 million years, with an error of 1%, it is thus 16M +/- 16,000.

Then along somes some smart-alex who then tries, stupidly, to say that with an error of 16,000, how can anyone use any dating techniques to date something that's way less than this error rate?

Was never said, C34. If the same system were to date something as, say, 14,525 years old, we who understand such systems of dating would say the date, more correctly, is 14,525 +/- 145 years. You can't apply the error rate from one item (+/- 16,000 years on an item of 16M years' age, for example) and date range to that of another. To do so only shows vast illiteracy on the subject! or an attempt to mislead, as the Chruch and many evangelical groups are known to do.

This is common knowledge amongst those in the know, C34. If you care to cite just who made such an erroneous claim, I'll find them and ask them just what they really meant. And happily post it here.

It's also quite demonstrative of your selective acceptance of science that you, of all people, alternately insist on the inerrant and precise accuracy of your beloved El Toro figurine dating findings. Let me re-quote your statement from above just soz you can't wiggle away too easily...

"You will never be able to set your watch by Radioisotope dating."

But in defence of your over-generalized statement, I completely concur: no dating of an unknown-age item will ever match the accuracy of my wrist watch, which, as you'd expect for a guy like me, is the Casio that automatically receives a signal from Station WWV in Boulder, CO, based on the absolutely inerrantly constant breakdown of the Cesium atom. It's been breakin' down that way since, well, since the Big Bang. Just like potassium-argon complexes, Carbon 14 isotopic conversion (Huh? says C34?) and the tracks of argon or thorium breakdown particles through such things as volcanic obsidian.



C34, your limits to understanding, coupled with active quote-mining, shows like pants worn too low show the butt crack...

From another site you either chose not to read, or not to show us, in the spirit of intellectual honesty:

"Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date."

So there you have it. The assumption that just because it surfaced 10 years earler, that was also the date of its original formulation.

You know, it's so easy to spot those who just quick-troll the internet, see something, & in their ignorance on the details of a subject, then post it as some sort of "final answer" proof.

I recently saw on CNN a video clip of a vehicle that crashed through a barrier on an overpass. Briefly, it was airborne.

Therefore, I conclude that Ford Pintos can, indeed, fly! Got it on the 'Net, dontcha know?

Literally within seconds I found out all the "inerrant" facts on your doctor Austin, who, it turns out, is an unapologetic voodoo Creationist. We now know he'll stoop to any and all levels of misquote or selective interpretation to make his point. Exactly why, C34, those of us in the know tend to be more skeptical than usual, & assume that any new Creationist claim ("God's Temple Found on The Far Side Of The Moon!!! Proof of God's Wonder and Creativity!") is at least suspect.

Not to mention that, given the quality and growth of the proven body of evidence against any Creation, we know that all new claims of so-called proof are just more bunko designed to get the tithers worked up....

The 'net has also made insta-fools by the thousands. Why don't one of you Creationists take just ten minutes, without frantically Googling for "Cut & Paste" expertise, quick-like, summarize the top ten best techniques for archeological dating, including the worst means for dating organic materials and stunning examples of their mis-use. Hint: you already have one case point, so this assignment is made easier already.

I'll given you a format and example off the top of my head here, based on my understanding:

(off the top of my head...)

"Certain classes of material items reliably accumulate two types of Thorium isotope (as in "version" of...). We know, absolutely, the decay rate of Thorium. Unlike C14 to C12 isotopic decay and transmutation, Thorium leaves it's new version behind, accumulating like a fingerprint at a crime scene. The relative ratios of undecayed to decayed provides a real good estimator of the time since the organic artifsact was last alive and accumulating the Thorium isotopes that occur in many items."

Not applicable to ceramics, rocks, etc. good for bones, tissues frozne into glacial ices, etc.

NOW; your turn. Let's just say, give us 3 techniques and their usses and limitations. Be sure to mention that C14/C12 is very very inappropriate for ceramics, since you're showing us your keen interest and knowledge of these systems...
It's not a question that Austin misused the measurement technique. It should be an obvious observation, that the lab has no way of knowing what kind of sample they are even testing. And this simple demonstration shows us, that their results can not be trusted. It is voodoo science, that comes into question here, not what Austin gave them. Your blaming him because they could not properly indentify his sample? Well I got news for you, there are many samples being given to these labs without known ages. And who do we blame when their test give us fake dates, Austin? LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,985 posts, read 18,582,885 times
Reputation: 9893
Austin's argument is more scientific than most creation claims before him. Austin presents a claim, then supports it through observation, drawing parallels, and a certain degree of scientific inquiry. His findings are not true science, however. What hinders this scientific inquiry, is the ever present, overriding subject of faith. Austin used the Bible as a basis for his claims, and he conducted his research to support the conclusion he already drew before even starting research. This is the way creation "science" works...Find a way to make it fit the biblical story, even if it's fraudulent.

I wonder how much he is being paid by the Institute for Creation "Research"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top