How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

[Skeeter]

Theories should always be held on to lightly. The goal should always be to test them, because they are never a perfect description of reality.

This is actually a semi-rational statement. Scientific Theories contain overarching organizing principles but also have a cutting edge. The cutting edge needs continual correction.

 

[Skeeter]

So what?

All of them "cannot be safely assumed". Science is not about making unproven and unprovable assumptions.

All of the starting conditions are unknown and unknowable with regard to your preferred origins model.

Where is your "no evidence of conditions that would alter it"? What evidence do you have that there have never been conditions of radical change?

You are uninformed and speak from your own ignorance.

No they don't. Also note that this assumption is the least problematic of the three.

Also note that "agreeable dates" from multiple bogus methods is not science, it is superstition.

Bunk! Radiometric dating"s assumptions are no more difficult to accept than the assumptions we have in regard to a yardstick.

You do not have to isolate the origins of the wheel to drive a car!!

 

[ok doser]

Indeed, this gets back to the GROSS assumptions of the "big bang" model and the unknown and unknowable conditions that it would have produced.

Dude, they got it covered

 

[Right Divider]

Bunk! Radiometric dating"s assumptions are no more difficult to accept than the assumptions we have in regard to a yardstick.

You do not have to isolate the origins of the wheel to drive a car!!

You are truly a moron on this topic.

 

[Idolater]

OK.

I can respect your analysis even if I don't share your apparent enamor for Bell.

Well, see below on that. And thank you for the respect.

The point I'm trying to get across to the Darwin crowd is that there is no difference in the scientific process regardless of the power of the theory being discussed.

They are never confirmed and they should never be assumed without being explicit about it. They are only ever challenged by evidence.

I would only say that "confirm" isn't the same as "prove". 'Confirm' just means, the evidence doesn't conflict with it. That's categorically not the same as proof. Bell's Theorem isn't proved, it's just always confirmed 100% of the time. It's still categorically distinct from something that is proven to be true, such as, "I have a hand" (If anybody wants an elaboration on this allusion, read Ludwig Wittgenstein's On Certainty) or 'twice two is four'.

The great thing about the scientific process is that it can deal with literally any idea from any source.

I would say you've got logical analysis, which doesn't depend upon content but only upon form, and then you've got examination of the evidence to see about consistency with the idea (assuming the idea is logical and coherent to begin with, which would be nice).

Evolutionists are forever attempting to call their idea "the science" and deny others a seat at the table.

In answer to this, I would proffer Bell's Theorem as a type of standard by which to judge the degree to which all the evidence either sustains or alternatively appears to conflict with the theory in question. Evolution, Big Bang, abiogenesis, 'that there was no global flood at any point in the past 6000 years', these are all low quality theories compared to Bell's Theorem. They are obviously low quality! compared to Bell's Theorem.

I guess in short, when you use Bell's Theorem (or another strong high quality theory) as a standard, then it ought to be easy to sustain an argument that evolution and "billions of years" don't deserve a 'seat at the table' anyway themselves.

 

[Skeeter]

Also note that "agreeable dates" from multiple bogus methods is not science, it is superstition.

Explain the similarity, genius. Different isotopes have different decay rates and some overlap in their range, so they can be compared in many situations. If they concur, that is great corroborating evidence. It is a wonder why you call other's ideas fairy tales, just-so stories, and superstition when we are barred from using such comments against your position. There is a reason why you are allowed a handicap. Having your worldview puts you at a great disadvantage.

 

[Stripe]

Yeah right, just like I need to know the basis of the Big Bang to talk evolution? No way.

Remedial logic and remedial maths.

If you want to talk about x, you need to know how x forms.

That is not equal to:

If you want to talk about y, you have to believe z.

The question is simple. How is radioactive material formed?

 

[Right Divider]

Explain the similarity, genius.

Stop with the insults.

Since the method is completely BOGUS... it could just be coincidence.

Different isotopes have different decay rates and some overlap in their range, so they can be compared in many situations.

Again, for the low IQ's in the thread (that's you), the starting conditional for ALL of the various isotopes is UNKNOWN and UNKNOWABLE. As are the intervening conditions. Bogus all.

If the concur that is great corroborating evidence.

No, it's not. Multiple BOGUS methods agreeing is meaningless.

It is a wonder why you call other's ideas fairy tales, just so stories, and superstition when we are barred from using such comments against your position. There is a reason why you are allowed a handicap. Having your worldview puts you at a great disadvantage.

Silliness and childishness. Please say something intelligent.

 

[Skeeter]

Since the method is completely BOGUS... it could just be coincidence.

The concurrence strongly argues against that they could be bogus or coincidental. Unless you are accusing the researchers of just fudging things, you are showing a general lack of understanding of inferential statistics.

Again, for the low IQ's in the thread (that's you),

Stop with the insults.

the starting conditional for ALL of the various isotopes is UNKNOWN and UNKNOWABLE. As are the intervening conditions. Bogus all.

If we can establish that isotopes decay uniformly, then the starting conditions that set off the decay are irrelevant. Explain why they are crucial in your view.

 

[Stripe]

I would only say that "confirm" isn't the same as "prove". 'Confirm' just means, the evidence doesn't conflict with it. That's categorically not the same as proof.

I don't know about that, but I'm not a dictionary.

I was using them as synonyms.

Bell's Theorem isn't proved, it's just always confirmed 100% of the time. It's still categorically distinct from something that is proven to be true, such as, "I have a hand" (If anybody wants an elaboration on this allusion, read Ludwig Wittgenstein's On Certainty) or 'twice two is four'.

Maybe usage of the term has evolved. I might investigate your source.

I would say you've got logical analysis, which doesn't depend upon content but only upon form, and then you've got examination of the evidence to see about consistency with the idea (assuming the idea is logical and coherent to begin with, which would be nice).

I happily box all such things under the blanket idea of a rational investigation.

In answer to this, I would proffer Bell's Theorem as a type of standard by which to judge the degree to which all the evidence either sustains or alternatively appears to conflict with the theory in question. Evolution, Big Bang, abiogenesis, 'that there was no global flood at any point in the past 6000 years', these are all low quality theories compared to Bell's Theorem. They are obviously low quality! compared to Bell's Theorem.

Well, sure.

The point is that the theory should then be discarded or modified.

Wait. It should first be rigorously defined.

Then throw it out.

I guess in short, when you use Bell's Theorem (or another strong high quality theory) as a standard, then it ought to be easy to sustain an argument that evolution and "billions of years" don't deserve a 'seat at the table' anyway themselves.

The denial of seats is best done by the guy who owns the failed theory.

 

[Right Divider]

The concurrence strongly argues against that they could be bogus or coincidental.

Again, for the illogical and hard of hearing:
The method(s) are BOGUS, so any agreement is irrelevant.

If we can establish that isotopes decay uniformly, then the starting conditions that set off the decay are irrelevant.

We CANNOT establish that the isotopes have ALWAYS decayed uniformly. This is another GROSS assumption.

Explain why they are crucial in your view.

 

[Skeeter]

Again, for the illogical and hard of hearing:
The method(s) are BOGUS, so any agreement is irrelevant.

Sorry, no. The chance that there would be agreement by chance alone is tiny. And, when we have multiple occurrence of agreement, it is virtually impossible.

The Mississippi flows at rate that can be measured. We can estimate how far a body can drift over a particular period of time and find the body on this basis. This is a gross example. But, we do not need to know where and how the water flow started. Isotope decay is infinitely more predictable than a river. It is as reliable as gravity.

We CANNOT establish that the isotopes have ALWAYS decayed uniformly. This is another GROSS assumption.

Then, we cannot establish ANYTHING in physics. How did gravity start?

Stop sleeping on your responsibility to justify your view.

 

[marke]

In this retard-fest, we are getting the old "it's just a theory" diversion.

The word "theory" is used in colloquial speech to denote a claim that has little or no support.

In the domain of science, the term has a much different meaning. From wikipedia:

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[6][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[6] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

You can call irrefutable scientific facts theories if you like but do not call unproven scientific theories irrefutable scientific facts.

 

[marke]

Radiometric dating is cross-checked by comparing it to estimates of the strata.

If the results of an age test of a rock do not agree with evolutionist assumptions about the age of the rock then evolutionists simply reject the test results. Similarly, after reputable labs tested bones of an unknown origin they guaranteed their results, which fell between 20,000 and 50,000 years old. However, after being told the bones were dinosaurs the labs withdrew their guaranteed results in anger for having been deceived into testing them.

 

[expos4ever]

How is the age of rock determined? Its age is determined by its position in the geologic strata. How are the ages of rock strata determined? They are dated by the age of fossils in them. How are the ages of fossils determined? They are dated by the ages of the rock strata in which they are found.

Fiction.

Please provide a credible argument to defend your frankly absurd implication that the experts are guilty of the kind of circular reasoning you are suggesting they are.

 

[expos4ever]

No they don't

Medical experts are virtually unanimous that smoking causes cancer.

 

[ok doser]

Medical experts are virtually unanimous that smoking causes cancer.

Responsible scientific language would say that tobacco smoke contains elements that can be shown to cause cancer.

When they put it out in the general environment for the general population of whom 50% have IQs less than 100, they have to dumb it down.

I'm a perfect refutation to the statement that smoking causes cancer. I used to smoke three packs a day. I do not have cancer.

 

[Idolater]

Responsible scientific language would say that tobacco smoke contains elements that can be shown to cause cancer.

When they put it out in the general environment for the general population of whom 50% have IQs less than 100, they have to dumb it down.

I'm a perfect refutation to the statement that smoking causes cancer. I used to smoke three packs a day. I do not have cancer.

THREE packs a day!

You must have 'chain smoked' all day long!

 

[marke]

Fiction.

Please provide a credible argument to defend your frankly absurd implication that the experts are guilty of the kind of circular reasoning you are suggesting they are.

How do 'scientists date rocks older than 60,000 years? By determining what their ages are supposed to be and then assigning those ages to them.

What are the 3 methods of dating rocks? – handlebar-online.com

www.handlebar-online.com

What method of rock dating is used in giving rocks actual date?​

Absolute dating
Geologists often need to know the age of material that they find. They use absolute dating methods, sometimes called numerical dating, to give rocks an actual date, or date range, in numbers of years.

How are scientists able to determine the age of fossils?​

Scientists use two kinds of dating techniques to work out the age of rocks and fossils. The first method is called relative dating. This considers the positions of the different rocks in sequence (in relation to each other) and the different types of fossil that are found in them. The second method is called absolute dating and is done by

 

[Skeeter]

THREE packs a day!

You must have 'chain smoked' all day long!

That guy needs extra stimulation.