Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

My denial of scripture is far from bizarre, it is quite ordinary in fact, relying as it does on the simple falsification of scripture's many bizarre claims.

That cannot be an excusefor being unable to support the claims of so called science about the far past, and that is all predicated upon a same nature existing then.

 

[dad1]

Since the type of dating for specimens that old use various forms of radioactive dating (not like with Carbon14, however), and since we quite well know how radioactivity works, I don't suspect any changes, especially with that relatively large range of the degree of error.

You do not know how radioactivity used to work. Or even if there was any, do you?

 

[dad1]

If the prints are newly discovered, then no, it has not been “securely dated”.

There would also be barrages of more tests, before it can be considered “securely dated”, especially like metis say, if the dating methods have such a huge “degree of error”.

The margin of error should be a lot smaller than the current age given.

You do know what metis is talking about, when he referred to “degree of error”, don’t you?

It is basic science and engineering practices, when measuring anything, to include plus-and-minus value to any measurement, including that measuring the age.

For instance, the age of the Earth would be given as -

4.54±0.04 bya​

The degree of error is “±0.04 bya“ or “± 40 million years”.

If the age is given “±1 bya”, then the degree of error is way too large.

The degree of error is strictly within imaginary time, don't get too hung up on it!

 

[gnostic]

The degree of error is strictly within imaginary time, don't get too hung up on it!

It is normal practice in science to allow for room that there might be error in the measurements, whether it measuring length, mass, voltage, time, etc.

Either the scientists who dated the footprints are using very faulty devices, or they are incompetent.

The degree of error should be 1% of the age measured.

So it should be 5.6 million years ±0.056 million years.

 

[metis]

You do not know how radioactivity used to work. Or even if there was any, do you?

Yep.

 

[dad1]

It is normal practice in science to allow for room that there might be error in the measurements, whether it measuring length, mass, voltage, time, etc.

Either the scientists who dated the footprints are using very faulty devices, or they are incompetent.

The degree of error should be 1% of the age measured.

So it should be 5.6 million years ±0.056 million years.

Yes the issue is the way they get any dates. You see there may not have been radioactive decay in the far past here at all. All your dates beyond 4000 years are WRONG completely and greatly.

 

[dad1]

Yep.

Then show us the goods. Show us there any radioactive decay at all, to start. Let's see what you got. Hit us with your best shot.

 

[metis]

Then show us the goods. Show us there any radioactive decay at all, to start. Let's see what you got. Hit us with your best shot.

Not interested, especially with your attitude being the way it is. So, maybe you should just do the homework on your own, and here's a reasonably good place to start: Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

BTW, if you're gonna act in an aggressive and insulting manner, how does that fit into Jesus' teachings on the "law of love" and the "Golden Rule"? Maybe think about that a bit.

 

[gnostic]

Yes the issue is the way they get any dates. You see there may not have been radioactive decay in the far past here at all. All your dates beyond 4000 years are WRONG completely and greatly.

You really haven’t studied any science whatsoever, have you?

The degree of error is used about just every scientific fields that required both accurate and precise measurements.

You’ll know this, if you have learned the very basics.

It is one of the first things you would learn, when you start physics or chemistry.

As to dates, who are you really kidding here?

If you were to believe in Genesis about the ages of the patriarchs, some like Adam, Seth, Methuselah, Noah, where they lived passed 900 years.

That’s really absurd, scientifically (biologically) and historically, if you take it literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then show us the goods. Show us there any radioactive decay at all, to start. Let's see what you got. Hit us with your best shot.

dad, this indicates a lack of understanding of the sciences. Radioactive decay is observed constantly in many different ways. In the sciences one builds a model that describes what is thought to happen. That model is called a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then tested many times. If it cannot reliably produce the same results it is discarded. If the same results can be obtained those same results "confirm" the hypothesis. They do not prove it. That never happens. But it is an indication that at the very least one is probably on the correct path.

In the sciences one does not merely try to find confirmation. A hypothesis does not have any real strength until one tries to show the hypothesis is wrong and fail to do so. A mere halfhearted attempt is worthless. One must actually find a reasonable test that could show one's hypothesis to be wrong if it was wrong. Those tests are then often used to indicate the event one is talking about.

With radioactive decay one can observe it by recording decays in a cloud chamber. Often one with an imposed electric or magnetic field.

The problem right now with your demand is that if actual decays were shown to you you probably do not have enough education to understand the evidence presented to you. It would be a waste of time.

Don't say that I did not warn you:

 

[Looncall]

Then show us the goods. Show us there any radioactive decay at all, to start. Let's see what you got. Hit us with your best shot.

Radiometric dates have been checked against non-radiometric phenomena such as tree rings, sediment layers, layers in corals etc to far before any biblical time period.

Your "past state" nonsense is just a normal dishonest creationist dodge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes the issue is the way they get any dates. You see there may not have been radioactive decay in the far past here at all. All your dates beyond 4000 years are WRONG completely and greatly.

You need to demonstrate this already.

 

[dad1]

Not interested, especially with your attitude being the way it is. So, maybe you should just do the homework on your own, and here's a reasonably good place to start: Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

BTW, if you're gonna act in an aggressive and insulting manner, how does that fit into Jesus' teachings on the "law of love" and the "Golden Rule"? Maybe think about that a bit.

Fail then. OK. You can't so much as back up the most basic and simple claims you make in the name of science. A big Gong for you.

 

[dad1]

You really haven’t studied any science whatsoever, have you?

Yes. And I found out they are wrong and very limited.

The degree of error is used about just every scientific fields that required both accurate and precise measurements.

Irrelevant since the way dates are determined is wrong!

As to dates, who are you really kidding here?

If you were to believe in Genesis about the ages of the patriarchs, some like Adam, Seth, Methuselah, Noah, where they lived passed 900 years.

That’s really absurd, scientifically (biologically) and historically, if you take it literally.

No it is quite reasonable. In the former nature that was normal. What is absurd is your belief that a same nature was here.

 

[dad1]

dad, this indicates a lack of understanding of the sciences. Radioactive decay is observed constantly in many different ways.

Try to focus. The issue is not whether things decay now or are now observed so doing.

In the sciences one builds a model that describes what is thought to happen. That model is called a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then tested many times. If it cannot reliably produce the same results it is discarded. If the same results can be obtained those same results "confirm" the hypothesis. They do not prove it. That never happens. But it is an indication that at the very least one is probably on the correct path.

Show us how you tested a same nature in the far past on earth? You didn't. Science merely assumes one and models and interprets data accordingly.

In the sciences one does not merely try to find confirmation. A hypothesis does not have any real strength until one tries to show the hypothesis is wrong and fail to do so. A mere halfhearted attempt is worthless. One must actually find a reasonable test that could show one's hypothesis to be wrong if it was wrong. Those tests are then often used to indicate the event one is talking about.

With radioactive decay one can observe it by recording decays in a cloud chamber. Often one with an imposed electric or magnetic field.

We can observe most features of the present state. Irrelevant to the far past unless it was the same nature.

The problem right now with your demand is that if actual decays were shown to you you probably do not have enough education to understand the evidence presented to you. It would be a waste of time.

Pretending you have some clue won't help you here. That is nonsense.

 

[dad1]

Radiometric dates have been checked against non-radiometric phenomena such as tree rings, sediment layers, layers in corals etc to far before any biblical time period.

Your "past state" nonsense is just a normal dishonest creationist dodge.

No. They assume trees grew in this nature and count rings accordingly. They assume sediment layers were laid down in this present state. They assume corals grew in this nature and etc etc. One tick pony religion you have there. Gong!

 

[dad1]

You need to demonstrate this already.

Easy to do, the basis for the dates is the same state past and neither you nor anyone else here can prove or evidence that the nature was the same.

 

[gnostic]

No it is quite reasonable. In the former nature that was normal. What is absurd is your belief that a same nature was here.

There are no differences in times, biologically between man, now, and man 10,000 years ago, except the life expectancy were shorter back then, dying younger than today.

Although some people in recorded history can live to 100 years old, back in ancient time, like in the Bronze Age, they weren’t common occurrences. People who lived that long, were statistically among the wealthier social classes, like rulers or kings.

People like in the bible, particularly in Genesis 5 and 11, living over 120 years old, are nothing more than myths.

 

[dad1]

There are no differences in times, biologically between man, now, and man 10,000 years ago, except the life expectancy were shorter back then, dying younger than today.]

Wrong. There was no 10,000 years ago, and you have no way of knowing about any differences.

Although some people in recorded history can live to 100 years old, back in ancient time, like in the Bronze Age, they weren’t common occurrences.

That was post flood so it doesn't mater, and you have no idea anyhow. Abraham lived 175 years for example. Like you would know.

People like in the bible, particularly in Genesis 5 and 11, living over 120 years old, are nothing more than myths.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try to focus. The issue is not whether things decay now or are now observed so doing.

dad, you should never accuse someone else of not focusing.

Show us how you tested a same nature in the far past on earth? You didn't. Science merely assumes one and models and interprets data accordingly.

Been there done that. You have been shown how distant novae have been tested. Please do not accuse others of what appear to be your flaws. Assumptions of the sort that you mentioned are not allowed in the scientific method.

In the sciences one does not merely try to find confirmation. A hypothesis does not have any real strength until one tries to show the hypothesis is wrong and fail to do so. A mere halfhearted attempt is worthless. One must actually find a reasonable test that could show one's hypothesis to be wrong if it was wrong. Those tests are then often used to indicate the event one is talking about.


We can observe most features of the present state. Irrelevant to the far past unless it was the same nature.
Pretending you have some clue won't help you here. That is nonsense.

We can observe the past too. If a person does not understand how that is done it does not mean that does not happen.

And dad, where is the evidence for a "different state past"? Since the Bible is in doubt it is not a valid source of evidence. If you have no evidence then there is no reason to take any of your claims seriously.