ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Scientists Admit Radiometric Dating is Innacurate -
June 19th, 2012, 02:11 PM
One tenth of one percent inaccurate, to be precise. A great video that shows how nonsensical the arguments against radiometric dating are. Creationists claim that scientists ignore anything that challenges their story, but it seems that scientists are constantly re-evaluating radiometric dating... and still getting pretty much the same numbers.
Clearly you have no idea of why creationists argue against the numbers returned. It's not because the methods are inaccurate, it's because the assumptions are not made explicit.
Clearly you have no idea of why creationists argue against the numbers returned. It's not because the methods are inaccurate, it's because the assumptions are not made explicit.
It's not like you're making these mythical hidden assumptions any clearer, is it.
Like all creationists, when it comes to actually understanding real science, you're long on bollocks and very short on substance.
Science says put up or shut up Stripe. Either explain to us what you think the problem is, and why it is a problem, and exactly how bit a problem it is, or withdraw back to your tiny little fantasy world of Imaginary Friends.
Calm down, quit with the rabid vitriol, try English and start making sense man!
I'd suggest that a perceived need to "calm down", "rabid vitriol", supposedly not using English and not making sense is about as inaccurate as it gets in one short sentence.
However perhaps the word "man" had some accuracy.
1/10.
It'd be ironic if I had not made a relevant and substantial contribution to this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
Of course they get the same numbers.
Clearly you have no idea of why creationists argue against the numbers returned. It's not because the methods are inaccurate, it's because the assumptions are not made explicit.
You use that word, ironic, a lot. But one suspects you don't quite know exactly what it means.
But feel free to ignore what I said and just add to the list of atheists willing to talk about anything but the clear case presented against them.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104556
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
It'd be ironic if I had not made a relevant and substantial contribution to this thread.
That is a big "IF". Your overrated view of your contribution is quite evident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
You use that word, ironic, a lot. But one suspects you don't quite know exactly what it means.
But feel free to ignore what I said and just add to the list of atheists willing to talk about anything but the clear case presented against them.
So apparently based on your previous response, I do understand what irony is. Since you admitted that the accuracy of my statement is based on whether you actually made a substantial contribution. And it is with this that you and I disagree. Fortunately the real world does not operate according to your wacky view of it. And no one has to blindly accept your claims as accurate without comprehensive research. This is why you lose. You are washed up, irrelevant, and obsolete. More of a court jester than a serious participant when it comes to science.
The only difference between you and a court jester is a court jester actually had the intention to entertain people by being foolish. You actually believe your own tripe.
Militant Moderate
Last edited by noguru; June 20th, 2012 at 09:49 AM.
That is a big "IF". You overrated view of your contribution is quite evident. So apparently based on your previous response, I do understand what irony is. Since you admitted that the accuracy of my statement is based on whether you actually made a substantial contribution. And it is with this that you and I disagree. Fortunately the real world does not operate according to your wacky view of it. And no one has to blindly accept your claims as accurate without comprehensive research. This is why you lose. You are washed up, irrelevant, and obsolete. More of a court jester than a serious participant when it comes to science.The only difference between you and a court jester is a court jester actually had the intention to entertain people by being foolish. You actually believe your own tripe.
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 09:14 AM
I used to be a licensed professional land surveyor at one point in my life... the errors in observable observations been propagated throughout my surveys was always a concern with me. No matter how accurate you can measure, say a mile, there are conditions beyond your control that effect its relative accuracy.
When I look at radiometric carbon dating there are numerous assumptions that science takes as accurate which are then used to extrapolate out huge time spans.
Take half-life per se. Carbon-14 supposedly has a long half life, its calculable, but unobservable due to the short life span humans have. So they are taking that measurement they calculated and pushing it out millions or billions of years.. from a statistical point of view, its irresponsible.
It would be like me physically measuring the circumference of the earth with a 100 foot tape that could be missing a couple inches or even feet because I didn't have a place to go that I could compare it concretely to. (like a measured baseline that the USGS has in certain locations).
The biggest issue I have is that science assumes that radioactive decay is a constant... its something that cannot be proven when the rate of decay exceeds the time frame we have recorded existing rates. Gravitational pull and cosmic rays have all been proven to effect decay rates (albeit only very small changes have been observed so far).
Linear Mode
