Age of the Earth 2

[Guest arkon]

heh

semantics

Should I have used the phrase "Direct observation"? Feel better now?

Original amounts are assumed. Why? Because different conditions have differing effects. The rate can change. You assume it has not. Therefore the original amount is assumed.

Samples get tossed out if they do not conform. Uniformitarianism is a disaster. It constantly needs new methods because the old ones are unreliable. This one is no different.

[Bread_of_Life]

Firstly, I'm afraid there is rather a big difference between "direct observation" and "assumption" - it is not merely a semantic difference. If you had read my original post on this section, and you clearly have not, you would have found out that the original ammounts of parent and daughter element have not been assumed, and are not even *needed* for isochronic dating methods. As well as this, they can be directly measured, not assumed, by carrying the isochron on to the Y-axis intercept. I said this in my last post, did you even bother reading that before replying?

Secondly, you clearly still havn't read my numerous comments on variance in half lives. Let's go through them again, in the perhaps vain hope that you will actually bother reading this post in any detail. Firstly, scientists have used time machines to measure radioactive decay in the long past (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8796). Secondly, scientists use Uranium Decay Chains (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8179) to check that radioactive decay rates have been constant. Thirdly, scientists have tested radioactive sources at extremely high temperature and pressure - and have found that radioactivity only varies by about 3% in these conditions - and even then, only in certain radioactive compounds. Lastly, scientists know that any dramatic change in radioactive decay would melt the rocks that the decay occurs in, resetting isochrons to zero, and releasing radiogenic argon - two things you know nothing about, having not yet read either of my posts on radiometric dating and the age of the earth.

Thirdly, samples do not get "tossed out" if they do not conform. As I said to Mscoville earlier in this thread (the thread you havn't bothered reading before replying to it) mixing isochrons and even negative results are routinely reported because they often indicate interesting features in the geothermal history of the area the sample was taken from. This misapprehension can only come from a complete lack of experience of the scientific literature in this area - which isn't surprising, since you havn't even had the decency to read what I have written here, far less do any background research.

Lastly, we are still using the same methods of radiometric dating that we always have. Uranium dating, K-Ar and the various isochron methods and other minor methods have been used for years with great success and agreement. This is a far cry from them being, as you claim, disasterous, or in constant need of replacement. All of this just goes to prove that all you need to write a post is a good strong set of fingers - you don't need knowledge, evidence, or even to have read what has been said before to make sure that what you say is relevant.

[Guest arkon]

Firstly, I'm afraid there is rather a big difference between "direct observation" and "assumption" - it is not merely a semantic difference

Agreed

One is science, and the other is what evolutionists do.

Secondly, you clearly still havn't read my numerous comments on variance in half lives. Let's go through them again, in the perhaps vain hope that you will actually bother reading this post in any detail. Firstly, scientists have used time machines to measure radioactive decay in the long past (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8796). Secondly, scientists use Uranium Decay Chains (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8179) to check that radioactive decay rates have been constant. Thirdly, scientists have tested radioactive sources at extremely high temperature and pressure - and have found that radioactivity only varies by about 3% in these conditions - and even then, only in certain radioactive compounds. Lastly, scientists know that any dramatic change in radioactive decay would melt the rocks that the decay occurs in,

Using faulty theories to make more faulty theories does not make a good theory.

Let me put it a different way.

Two wrongs do not make a left...err...right...

Consistancy has not been observed.

Now I will skip the rest of your misimformation and get right to the meat of it all

Lastly, we are still using the same methods of radiometric dating that we always have. Uranium dating, K-Ar and the various isochron methods and other minor methods have been used for years with great success and agreement.

This is laughable.

The only fact in that quote is the fact that you have faith in them. This is your god.

Fresh volcanic rock, aged from 3 years and younger, gets dated between several thousand and 300000 years old. Now thats accurate.

Freshly killed seals dated in the 10's of thousands of years.

w00t! Thats accurate.

Listen. I understand your belief in this stuff. Its what you have been taught. I was taught the same junk in school. But its a fact that none of the dating methods can survive a blind test. They answers come up all over the place.

Check out this site. It will show you the other half that has been kept from you

http://evolution-facts.org/c06a.htm

[Bread_of_Life]

Arkon

Since you clearly have no interesting in answering the points and evidence I bring up, I'll cease this discussion with this post, although others are free to ask me more questions.

You said 2 things of substance in your post, you backed neither with evidence:

Consistancy has not been observed.

Wow, great retort, how long did it take you to come up with this one? If only you could present evidence of inconsistancy between dating methods to back this statement up. Unfortunately, such evidence is lacking, not only in your post, but in the world

Fresh volcanic rock, aged from 3 years and younger, gets dated between several thousand and 300000 years old. Now thats accurate.

That's right, by the K-Ar method. In fact, the K-Ar method can date new rock as old as 1 million years. Of course, you'd have known this, and why this happens, if you'd actually bothered reading this thread - because I have already explained why and how this happens when someone asked me earlier in this thread.

This only confirms to me what I have been saying all along - that you havn't even the common curiousity, not to mention decency, to read what I say before making your posts. This has been proved over and over again in your series of posts on here, all of which have been making points that have been dealt with either on this very thread, or elsewhere on related threads.

[Guest arkon]

Finally something we agree on.

It is this:

YOU do not read all the info provided for you. Not only did I show you the error of EVERY dating method you care to mention except the bible and written , secular, history...

I gave you a second chance before coming to this point. Still

You ignored it all. GOTO THE LINK.

Here it is again.

http://evolution-facts.org/c06a.htm

http://evolution-facts.org/c06a.htm

http://evolution-facts.org/c06a.htm

Unlike your atheist friend , who claims to be christian, this person did not set out to make God agree with darwin...he set out to find who is telling the TRUTH.

Truth is not relative.

It is absolute.

Jesus is Truth.

[Guest mscoville]

You go Arkon

[artsylady]

However, your assertion was that there is a "huge" difference in intelligence between ourselves and other animals. This is not true. Indeed, some Gorillas can learn up to a thousand words of sign, and communicate pretty well. That's not quite human standards, but it isn't a huge gap.

Let's see some evidence of the gorillas who can communicate a thousand words please.

No, I am perfectly aware that humans are more intelligent than dolphins or apes or elephants. However, you said that there was some sort of huge discontinuity between human and other animal intelligence. That isn't true. The difference is actually not that big - and has mostly to do with abstract thought and the use of tools.

This is still a major major difference in intelligence. Tools? lol Look at the skyscrapers and the towers and pyramids and computers and the Internet etc, etc, etc. Ever see a monkey build a shack? Ever see a dolphin figuring out a math problem? I guess I do have to point out these obvious differences to you.

QUOTE

You're very sure of many things that you have no proof of - language evolution, why origins myths arose, why men become spiritual leaders.

I am not sure of any of these things, in that there are many ways in which they can be explained, and I can only give possibilities.

But you refuse to believe that all of these things could be because there is a God and the stories in the Bible might be true. That's ONE possibility that you just won't consider, right?

QUOTE 

These names also go into Africa and Russia. So these people all of course, had copies of Bibles. Is that what you believe?

No. But I do believe that the tribes that moses based these names on probably spread southwards and northwards and mixed with other tribes, taking some of these tribal names with them.

What do you mean, 'that Moses based their names on'. Do you think, then that Moses knew of tribes, wrote down their names and then the tribes dispersed all over?

[Bread_of_Life]

artsylady,

http://www.koko.org/world/

Koko understands about 2000 words of spoken english

This is still a major major difference in intelligence. Tools? lol Look at the skyscrapers and the towers and pyramids and computers and the Internet etc, etc, etc. Ever see a monkey build a shack? Ever see a dolphin figuring out a math problem? I guess I do have to point out these obvious differences to you.

These are obvious differences, but they do not require huge changes in IQ, or brain size/density. Have you ever seen a mentally handicapped child build a skyscraper, or work out a math problem for example - yet, they arn't that different from us.

Also, if you compare the size and density of the human brain to the gorilla brain for example, the difference isn't huge. It would seem that the ammount you need above and beyond what our ape cousins have to build skyscrapers isn't that much.

But you refuse to believe that all of these things could be because there is a God and the stories in the Bible might be true. That's ONE possibility that you just won't consider, right?

Well, in terms of the literal story of genesis, it's one of the only possibilities that has been completely disproved by stacks of other evidence, so no, I rarely consider it as a valid explanation.

However, it is perfectly possible that God gave us language, or evolved our brains to understand or talk - this possibility is not excluded by scientific discoveries.

Do you think, then that Moses knew of tribes, wrote down their names and then the tribes dispersed all over?

Well, Moses, and whoever else wrote the first book of the bible, did probably know by repute a lot of local tribes, didn't he?

[artsylady]

Koko understands about 2000 words of spoken english

A really smart gorilla knows 2000 words. A really smart human knows 75,000 words. Yeah, fair comparison. It proves you see what you want to see.

These are obvious differences, but they do not require huge changes in IQ, or brain size/density. Have you ever seen a mentally handicapped child build a skyscraper, or work out a math problem for example - yet, they arn't that different from us.

I've seen a mentally handicapped person (why use child?) working behind a food counter serving food and working a cash register. Could your gorilla friend do that? Can he contribute anything to society? Serious question.

Also, if you compare the size and density of the human brain to the gorilla brain for example, the difference isn't huge.

Well! Size does matter! A great deal in this case!

em that the ammount you need above and beyond what our ape cousins have to build skyscrapers isn't that much.

They've had thousands of years to build a shack. Have they even done that? How about a fire? A wheel?

QUOTE 

But you refuse to believe that all of these things could be because there is a God and the stories in the Bible might be true. That's ONE possibility that you just won't consider, right?

Well, in terms of the literal story of genesis, it's one of the only possibilities that has been completely disproved by stacks of other evidence, so no, I rarely consider it as a valid explanation.

What about the over 500 peices of archaeology that prove the Bible stories correct? Throw them out because they don't fit with your beliefs?

QUOTE

Do you think, then that Moses knew of tribes, wrote down their names and then the tribes dispersed all over?

Well, Moses, and whoever else wrote the first book of the bible, did probably know by repute a lot of local tribes, didn't he?

Yes, he certainly did. So, you're saying that Moses did know of this tribe, wrote their names down and these people dispersed to different areas?

[Bread_of_Life]

A really smart gorilla knows 2000 words. A really smart human knows 75,000 words.

Most people only know about 5000 to 6000 words (well, that's the average vocabulary). Also, Koko's IQ has been measured as around 85 - which is just below the average human.

Also, did you notice my comments on brain size and density? It would seem that not a huge great deal of evolution is needed to expand our brains from being a lower ape to being us eh?

Also, did you know that primate's brain size varies according to how big a group they usually socialise? And, apparantly, what makes primates so good at abstracting is the size of the prefrontal cortex relative to the rest of the brain, which is enlarged in primates (including humans).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...gi?artid=123666

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=15007170

I've seen a mentally handicapped person (why use child?) working behind a food counter serving food and working a cash register. Could your gorilla friend do that? Can he contribute anything to society? Serious question.

No, but the difference isn't so massive.

They've had thousands of years to build a shack. Have they even done that? How about a fire? A wheel?

Nope, all of these are human inventions. But the physical differences that allow us to do this arn't that large - and nor is the difference in understanding and IQ. It's only taken us about a few million years of evolution to acquire this difference in brain size and density over our ape cousins.

What about the over 500 peices of archaeology that prove the Bible stories correct? Throw them out because they don't fit with your beliefs?

I don't doubt that some bible stories are true - or at least, that they are based on true kings, or true cities, or even true events. However, I would challenge you to come up with archaeological evidence of the Genesis flood, or that human life has only been around for 6000 years.

In fact, we find quite the opposite - we've got human life dating back tens of thousands of years archeologically.

Yes, he certainly did. So, you're saying that Moses did know of this tribe, wrote their names down and these people dispersed to different areas?

That's a possible explanation, yes. Also, it needn't involve large scale migration, but rather dispersement over a period of time.