Evidences given for a young-earth

[tas8831]

Sure i can support my assertion


Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?

Ah, Leroy! There you are!

You totally disappeared from for like 6 months after I tried to get you to address some biology a while back. I shall have to find those topics that you ran off form.

 

[Jose Fly]

It illustrates one of the reason that honest scientists will not debate with the likes of Kent Hovind. They try to use the honesty of scientists as a weapon against it. They claim to "know" when all they have are beliefs. Scientists that even know that a ball falls due to gravity will hedge their statements in a scientific journal allowing for the minuscule chance that they are wrong.

That's a good point. Someone like Hovind is free to lie and make things up all he wants and everyone will just shrug it off as "what he does". But if a scientist were to do even one one hundredth of that, it'd make headlines.

Funny too how it's those who claim to be on the side of God who have the lower ethical expectations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Don't you love it when fundamentalist science bashers complain about the use of intellectually honest language in science publications?

It's a transparently dishonest "heads I win, tails you lose" construct from creationists. If scientists speak confidently and authoritatively, they're overselling their conclusions. If scientists speak cautiously, then it's all just speculation, no better than "I am Santa Claus".

So no matter what scientists do, the creationist always has a response....never mind that the responses contradict each other.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationist would argue that the ratio of c14 was different in the past and therefore none if the dates in that lake would be reliable

So? How is that any different than flat-earthers arguing that NASA's pictures of the earth are fake/distorted?

 

[leroy]

Ah, Leroy! There you are!

You totally disappeared from for like 6 months after I tried to get you to address some biology a while back. I shall have to find those topics that you ran off form.

Not answering for the 20th time something that was already answered 19 times doesn’t count as run-off.

Feel free to provide your favorite claim (that I supposedly ran off) and I would be happy to answer

 

[leroy]

You need to document these claims above. It is easy for me to cite other older dating of fossils in published material. No problem and I will do so.

The bold above is basically not true concerning the peer reviewed research that requires multiple dating methods to confirm the date. It is true many fossils are not rigorously dated, but the they are associated with strata and fossils that are not used in specific peer reviewed research, and dated by other fossils in peer reviewed research. You are still avoiding the issue that the lamela dating method is directly accurate for over 400,000 years and does not require the accuracy to be compared to other dating methods. This dating method is used to confirm other dating methods and dates of such things as the recent Ice Ages.

It is not especially rare for verification of fossils older than a million years old, in fact it required if they are used in peer reviewed research. The process remains that stratigraphy is first used, and correlated with other fossil finds in the same stratigraphy, and then independently tested by radiometric and other dating methods as cross confirmation of dates. There is a huge amount of peer reviewed literature that has used multiple dating methods that is most often required for publication,

More to follow . . .

I have no issues with accepting the Lamela dating, my only issue is that old earthers should not lie and make things up just to make YEC look bad.

Most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods, (as my source shows) suggesting otherwise is simply a lie. For example it would be inaccurate if you say something like “all dinosaurs are dated by multiple independent methods and we always get dates older than 65M years old”

It would be more honest if you say, only a small minority of dinosaurs are dated by multiple independent methods and usually we get consistent ages of 65M+ years.

 

[sooda]

I have issues with accepting the Lamela dating, my only issue is that old earthers should not lie and make things up just to make YEC look bad.

Most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods, (as my source shows) suggesting otherwise is simply a lie. For example it would be inaccurate if you say something like “all dinosaurs are dated by multiple independent methods and we always get dates older than 65M years old”

It would be more honest if you say, only a small minority of dinosaurs are dated by multiple independent methods and usually we get consistent ages of 65M+ years.

Yes, most fossils are dated by multiple methods. Do you understand about "strata"?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have issues with accepting the Lamela dating, my only issue is that old earthers should not lie and make things up just to make YEC look bad.

The dating by lake lamela is a direct reliable method of dating, and I do not have a problem making YEC advocates looking bad with direct objectiviable evidence.

Most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods, (as my source shows) suggesting otherwise is simply a lie. For example it would be inaccurate if you say something like “all dinosaurs are dated by multiple independent methods and we always get dates older than 65M years old”

Selectively citing your source does not support your argument. I AM NOT claiming the bold, and it is blatantly false. I did not refer to ALL dinosaur fossils are dated by multiple sources. Please reread my post and cite me accurately. I did say that peer reviewed research requires multiple dating methods to confirm the dates claimed. There are many many fossils that are simply dated based where they are found in relation to previous research work and publications.

It would be more honest if you say, only a small minority of dinosaurs are dated by multiple independent methods and usually we get consistent ages of 65M+ years.

No it would not be honest to say that. It would honest to say that peer reviewed scientific journals require multiple dating methods to justify the source and age of the fossils. Actually it does not take a lot of accurately dated dinosaur fossils to accurately date all the strata of the period of time that dinosaurs existed. It is true that many dinosaur and other fossils are only dated based on comparison with previous research where they were found, but for science this is not important.

It is a matter of fact that there are thousands of peer reviewed publications in recent history that have used multiple dating methods and references to previous research to date the strata and fossils for the whole history of life on earth.

 

[leroy]

Yes, most fossils are dated by multiple methods. Do you understand about "strata"?

“strata” is not independent from say K-Ar dating, unless the strata was dated originally by some other method.

 

[leroy]

Selectively citing your source does not support your argument. I AM NOT claiming the bold, and it is blatantly false. I did not refer to ALL dinosaur fossils are dated by multiple sources. Please reread my post and cite me accurately. I did say that peer reviewed research requires multiple dating methods to confirm the dates claimed. There are many many fossils that are simply dated based where they are found in relation to previous research work and publications.
.

Well that is because you jumped in to the conversation without understanding the context, the claim that I am disputing is that alllllllll fossils are dated by multiple independent methods.

 

[dad]

Science does know..

Then post it rather than twirl batons and shout ra ra.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well that is because you jumped in to the conversation without understanding the context, the claim that I am disputing is that alllllllll fossils are dated by multiple independent methods.

I just made it clear the the important fossils for peer reviewed literature are what ar dated by multiple methods to confirm dating. You made statements of 'most' which is not really relevant to an objective discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then post it rather than twirl batons and shout ra ra.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Using natural concepts (present nature no less) to try and deal with supernatural creation and life is lame.

 

[shunyadragon]

“strata” is not independent from say K-Ar dating, unless the strata was dated originally by some other method.

Dating by strata is independent of radiometric dating say K-Ar. K-Ar dating is an independent way of dating strata or fossils, and not related to dating by atrata in part because fossils in strata may be from older strata strata deposited by water. The bold is confusing

 

[shunyadragon]

Using natural concepts (present nature no less) to try and deal with supernatural creation and life is lame.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. Ther is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[dad]

Dating by strata is independent of radiometric dating say K-Ar. K-Ar dating is an independent way of dating strata or fossils, and not related to dating by atrata in part because fossils in strata may be from older strata strata deposited by water. The bold is confusing

Show us an example of any strata dated that is, say, 70 million years old (in your imaginary science time) that involves no radioactive decay dating?

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

The only methods used are physical laws and processes we see here now, and that cannot apply to creation arguments or origin issues. If they really thought that they "know" origins of life or the world or etc by only using such small and limited criteria, they are in for a shock.

 

[shunyadragon]

Show us an example of any strata dated that is, say, 70 million years old (in your imaginary science time) that involves no radioactive decay dating?

o know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

The only methods used are physical laws and processes we see here now, and that cannot apply to creation arguments or origin issues. If they really thought that they "know" origins of life or the world or etc by only using such small and limited criteria, they are in for a shock.

o know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.