Does God exist? (your opinion anyways.)

[BTGBullseye]

Yes, their dating methods are a lie. If we knew the atmospheric concentrations, and the original concentrations of the various elements they use for dating, then they could be fairly accurate, but neither of those are known. (not just C-14 dating, this includes all of their current dating methods)

GIVE THE SOURCES. We can't progress without them.

I will if I have the time tonight, otherwise it'll probly be tomorrow.

 

And you're so great, because you only have ONE side of bias driving you.

Resorting to a personal attack, or are you actually going to refute the argument?

 

Oh, and that comment you made to @Vapymid about having two sides of bias was TOTALLY not a personal attack.

Taken out of context, I would agree... (and only when taken out of context) I was saying that there is a bias from each country that are conspiring to induce false assumptions about Catholicism.

[ThePest179]

Okay.

[BTGBullseye]

Well, here's one of the sources for the inexact pseudoscience of radiocarbon and other dating methods...

 

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

[Xalder]

Well, here's one of the sources for the inexact pseudoscience of radiocarbon and other dating methods...

 

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

 

What the fuck is this shit? This isn't even a source, what the fuck. I don't.... I just... what. This isn't a source. This is a shitty website made by some random person. I don't... What the hell is with these "references" on the bottom? This is... wow, this is your source? How many of your "sources" look like this? This is.... good god this is terrible. I just can't even.

 

I can hardly bring myself to even read this it's so bad. I don't want to lose more brain cells than those lost simply by having seen it. Holy fuck, wikipedia is infinitely more reliable than this shit.

 

Alright. Radiocarbon Dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

 

Carbon Dating using C14 is only used "to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years Before Present." And that "over time there are small fluctuations in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, fluctuations that have been noted in natural records of the past, such as sequences of tree rings and cave deposits. These records allow fine-tuning, or "calibration", of the raw radiocarbon age, to give a more accurate estimate of the calendar date of the material. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites."

 

So in reality, when using C14, the limitations are known and are accounted and calibrated for, in order to get accurate readings of dead organic material up to 60,000 years old. 60,000 years is almost exactly 10 times longer than 6,000 years, by the way.

 

The fact is that carbon dating is one tool. There are many different dating tools, and the trick is to use the one that will be most accurate for the material being dated.

 

Is that the only dating method you were convinced is "corrupt," or do you need to argue the others as well.

 

Again, the trick with dating is using the right method for the material being dated. Carbon dating is limited, but presumably so is every other dating method. That's why there's more than one method at all.

[BTGBullseye]

So lets see... You didn't find it a usable source because it is on a site you don't find appealing to look at/read, and because it doesn't use sources from the places you like?

 

Not to mention, you didn't even read the entire thing... It focused on C-14 as an example, but covers all the different dating methods.

[Xalder]

It didn't cite any actual sources at all!

 

"1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind

 

6)Antarctic Journal, Washington

10)"Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker"

 

That is not even close to citing sources! What video lecture? Which "Antarctic Journal?" I suppose the thing by "Gary Parker" could be found, but there's no way to know anything else about that shit-stain of a website! There's also an autistic "joke" about a guard, insulting the intelligence of anyone who works in a museum!

 

The fucking "can you use the information on my site?" only credits the bible as a source. Anyone who uses this shit as a source of information is poorly mis-informed and succepting themselves to absolute stupidity. The person running the site doesn't even claim to have any sort of background in any of the information they're sharing.

 

I just don't know what else to say. The unreliability is so blatant I don't see how anyone would ever have to prove said unreliability. Anyone who tries is likely just beating a dead horse. So yeah. This is clearly a lost cause.

[Lord Sinister]

Just popping by to say lets avoid personal attacks on people in general.

 

This thread is a contentious topic. Interpretations and opinions, they're all going to differ amongst everyone, and very few people are going to change them based on some discussion about them in a forum thread on the internet. This means there will always be conflict. The reasonable thing is to live with the fact that people think different things and have different opinions without letting it get to you.

 

Please try to refrain from personal attacks in this forum. (also known across the internet as "flaming") I don't mind personally, but it kinda detracts from the issues, and it's against rule #2. (http://www.accursedfarms.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=13)

 

Whilst this is true, if you feel a post is a problem, report it. Don't try to backseat moderate as it can just cause further issues.

 

 

 

On a final note regarding the dating stuff, here's a relevant article I found on the internet to stuff into this debate, its sources are cited at the end. It details the various different methods used, such as dating the area around the fossils rather than the fossils themselves. It's pretty clever stuff.

 

Lets keep things civil, people.

[ThePest179]

Well, here's one of the sources for the inexact pseudoscience of radiocarbon and other dating methods...

 

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

 

You mean a Bible thumping website masquerading as a source? I seriously think that you did this as some sort of joke. There is no other explanation, especially considering how piss poor this "source" is.

[Xalder]

Well, here's one of the sources for the inexact pseudoscience of radiocarbon and other dating methods...

 

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

 

You mean a Bible thumping website masquerading as a source? I seriously think that you did this as some sort of joke. There is no other explanation, especially considering how piss poor this "source" is.

 

It's a source of creationism propaganda and misinformation. The insatiable amount of bias couldn't stand a hope of the slightest hint of credibility.

[BTGBullseye]

And yet all you do is attack the site used, not the material it presents and sources. (badly done sources are still sources)

[Xalder]

They're not sources. But, if you can actually locate the "sources" given, I'll gladly take a look at them.

 

The fact that I've already refuted the idea of Carbon Dating "proving" the earth is young makes me wonder what the point is anyway. It's cherry picking, plain and simple. I may be wrong but it stands to reason that most arguments against all methods of dating are going to be cherry picking as well.

 

Oh, and it's also false dilemma to say that if all dating methods are false then the earth must be young. You also can't prove to me that the universe wasn't created this very instant and everything before this point was implanted into our memories and the evidence planted by some intelligent design.

[BTGBullseye]

At what point did you refute anything?

 

You don't like the sources, fine... You're intentionally living in ignorance and arrogance, that's your choice.

 

At what point did I say that the Earth was a young planet? I have no idea how old it is, but I doubt it's less than a few million. I do however believe that there was no death before ~6000 years ago... Go ahead and argue all you want, just don't try to use insults to make yourself feel better.

[ThePest179]

The sources are crap, that's why we don't like them! And you're claiming insults again! Just another way for you to claim our arguments are invalid is by claiming we're insulting you.

[Xalder]

I refuted the argument that carbon dating is a "'pseudoscience." I don't think it's insulting to point out logical fallacies. When I mentioned false dilemma (also known as false dichotomy), I proposed a third option that the universe has only just been created at the very moment and everything in our memories up to this point is simply a product of intelligent design. You can't prove me wrong that everything before now was simply implanted by a creator who wanted to start a universe in the middle of its run.

 

And, again, it's not a source. The requirements for a website to be a credible source of information include the following

 

- Author: I could not find any information about the author of the site other than an email address. The links to the "main page" are inconsistent and the "main page" that I keep getting taken to has nothing to do with scientific information.

 

- Date: There is no indicator of when the (mis-)information was written, other than "2/03," which is not enough to determine when the information was written. Based on this, one could even make the assumption that even if the information was not false at the time of writing, it's reasonable to assume that the information has become outdated since that time.

 

- Sources: Again, none are properly cited, truly one of the first indicators of questionable credibility.

 

- Site Design: I've made my stance on this point very clear.

 

- Writing Style: I believe this one is subjective, too. While the writing style is clear, it makes my brain hurt from the amount of cherry picking and false dichotomies. Logical fallacies make for a very poor source of information in terms of credibility.

 

Saying that I "don't like the source" as an argument is attempting to put the burden of proof onto me when it's your claim that requires proof. Also, claiming that I'm the one living in ignorance and arrogance is misrepresentative of my arguments and potentially could be projection.

 

Sorry, I do recall a hint of you being an old earth creationist rather than a young earth one. I didn't mean to make you out to be a young earth creationist when you're not.

 

Creationism as a whole is just bewilderingly asinine. The amount of scientific consensus you have to reject in order to believe in it just baffles the mind.

[BTGBullseye]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/assumptions

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html (look at the first sentence in the Uranium-Lead section)

[Xalder]

So, basically, you don't like my sources, so you're just throwing more that say the exact same thing at me.

 

http://www.oldearth.org/rate_index.htm

 

We're going to go in a circle. This site links to numerous journals and articles discrediting attempts to disprove radiometric dating. As expected, the whole thing boils down to creationists cherry-picking data in an attempt to discredit all radiometric dating figures.

 

What exactly are you trying to argue against Radiometric Dating? The science of the process is understood and perfectly sound. For the argument to continue with any rationality there needs to be questions asked along with the sources of information provided.

[BTGBullseye]

So you're saying that despite the proven inconsistencies, and scientific evidence PROVING that the radiometric dating method is inaccurate, you don't want to believe, just because you don't like the fact that some are done by religious groups?

 

You want to argue about sources? How many of your sources have sent in identical items, without a date, told the testing facility multiple different guessed at dates, and NOT gotten back dates that match identically with what they told the testers they expected? How many of your sources have done a truly scientific study of whether or not the testing facilities are giving the tested results, or just the ones that match the dates expected?

 

Your most recent site only supports the position I've been saying, a very old earth... Not old for anything else, just the earth. If you look at the Hyperphysics link I provided, it even said that there is a proven minimum age for the earth... (in the billions of years) You're arguing a completely different section of this, one that I already told you I believe.

 

As it is, so far, you have provided nothing that supports radiometric dating outside of specific geological samples. (which is not the same radio dating as I'm talking about)

[Xalder]

Outside of specific geological samples? YECs specifically choose samples and methods that are going to produce inconsistent measurements. Their arguments mean absolutely nothing. The fact that you're using YEC logic to argue a point that goes completely against your own rationality of an old earth is extremely inconsistent.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit

 

My point is that radiometric dating is consistent, and "If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected."

 

Furthermore, radiometric dating is used in conjunction with stratigraphic principles.

 

Lastly I'll provide this quote:

 

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

 

Creationists specifically look for inconsistencies, then cite them as "proof" that "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

[BTGBullseye]

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1960/ajs_258A_11.pdf/104.pdf

http://science.jrank.org/pages/6539/Stratigraphy-Archeology-Problems-with-stratigraphy.html

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2014/EGU2014-3615.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FMZA%2FMZA40_04%2FS0764583X0600029Xa.pdf&code=a3fff2f71c264f76d36eebf438633b36

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30063206?seq=1

 

Problems with that dating method. (one of the papers is from Yale, another from Cambridge)

 

Both dating methods are questionable at best, so why do so many people think that the dates produced are so accurate?

[Xalder]

First source: I'd need to read it to figure out why you're linking it, but the fact that it's from 1960 immediately begs the question of exactly how outdated it is by now.

 

Second source: One incident of a contaminated site proves what, exactly? And the Piltdown Man hoax was simply that: a hoax. I don't think any dating methods were even much involved with that.

 

Third source: This, I'm not sure if it's poorly translated or perhaps with english not being the first language of the author there might have been some grammatical difficulties. As far as I can make out, Russians are somewhat behind on their studies in geography and are simply asking for other countries to share data and clarify methods with them. (I like how I ended up imagining a Russian accent while reading that.)

 

Fourth: Again, I don't know what information I'm supposed to get out of this. What dating method is being argued and what's your point of arguing against it?

 

Fifth Source: Similar to your first source, only much more outdated with a 1922 publication date.

 

Oh wait, you're arguing that using pure stratigraphic dating is inconsistent? I'm still uncertain of the specifics but the fact of the matter is that both dating methods are used in conjunction with each other in order for each method to increase the accuracy of the other. Arguing specific cases is, once again, cherry picking.