It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Circular reasoning or not?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You lack belief in radiometric dating, yet you can provide no scientific rationale for that belief. Post a few citations. Let's see how "rational" you are.




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

From the American Geosciences Institute

Age determinations using radioactive isotopes have reached the point where they are subject to very small errors of measurement, now usually less than 1%. For example, minerals from a volcanic ash bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, have been dated by three independent isotopic methods (Baadsgaard, et al., 1993). The potassium/argon method gave an age of 72.5 plus or minus 0.2 million years ago (mya), a possible error of 0.27%; the uranium/lead method gave an age of 72.4 plus or minus 0.4 mya, a possible error of 0.55%; and the rubidium/strontium method gave an age of 72.54 plus or minus 0.18 mya, a possible error of 0.25%. The possible errors in these measurements are well under 1%. For comparison, 1% of an hour is 36 seconds. For most scientific investigations an error of less than 1% is insignificant.

www.agiweb.org...

Now, why don't you tell us why they're wrong? What miscalculations did they make? What calculations did you make?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But specifically Creationists are notorious liars and peddlers of pseudo science..... with that kind of record why would anyone give them the time of day?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


I'm not denying facts. I'm telling you that your QUOTES are 40 years old and not indicative of current science and furthermore that you haven't provided any evidence of your own.


and I am telling you your science is 200 years old and the quotes state clearly that they have been updated with estimates, estimates means guesses. that means that its all wild assumption.

Go read it with your brain in the on position this time.

" Therefore, Divisions of Geologic Time (fig. 1) is intended to be a dynamic resource that will be modified to include accepted changes of unit names and boundary age estimates. This fact sheet is a modification of USGS Fact Sheet 2007-3015 by the U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee (2007). "

A fact sheet full of estimates, oh the irony



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

From the U.S. Geological Service

The Age of the Earth
How do we know the Age of the Earth?
Radiometric dating
Adapted from The Age of the Earth , by the Branch of Isotope Geology, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California
How do we know the Age of the Earth?
The Earth is a constantly changing planet. Its crust is continually being created, modified, and destroyed. As a result, rocks that record its earliest history have not been found and probably no longer exist. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that the Earth and the other bodies of the Solar System are 4.5-4.6 billion years old, and that the Milky Way Galaxy and the Universe are older still. The principal evidence for the antiquity of Earth and its cosmic surroundings is:
• The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.

The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age.
• The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids and represent some of the most primitive material in the solar system, have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods.
• The "best" age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This "model lead age" is 4.54 billion years.
• The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. a) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. b) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7 billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. c) Combining the data from a) and b), the "best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years. For more current information on the age of the universe, visit NASA's Planck Mission studies.

Radiometric dating
Spontaneous breakdown or decay of atomic nuclei, termed radioactive decay, is the basis for all radiometric dating methods. Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by French physicist Henri Becquerel. By 1907 study of the decay products of uranium (lead and intermediate radioactive elements that decay to lead) demonstrated to B. B. Boltwood that the lead/uranium ratio in uranium minerals increased with geologic age and might provide a geological dating tool.
As radioactive Parent atoms decay to stable daughter atoms (as uranium decays to lead) each disintegration results in one more atom of the daughter than was initially present and one less atom of the parent. The probability of a parent atom decaying in a fixed period of time is always the same for all atoms of that type regardless of temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. This probability of decay is the decay constant. The time required for one-half of any original number of parent atoms to decay is the half-life, which is related to the decay constant by a simple mathematical formula.
All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur. The radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:
Parent Daughter Half-life
Uranium-235 Lead-207 0.704 billion years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0
Rhenium-187 Osmium-187 43.0
Lutetium-176 Hafnium-176 35.9

Radiometric dating using the naturally-occurring radioactive elements is simple in concept even though technically complex. If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant. The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured. Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events.
In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.


geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...

Now how about telling us why these scientists are wrong because I'm going to write a letter to these institutions and tell them that I know some folks at ATS who say that they're full of SH*^%^)it. And that they have more accurate calculations.

I'm preparing the letters now.....



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Anyone else find it ironic that the anti-science, evolution-denying, fundamentalist Christians were up and about, posting and commenting in a thread on Easter Sunday... while the "atheist evolutionist" crowd was enjoying the day off, probably spending it with their families?

If this kind of science was only carried out in the fashion the OP described -- using fossils to date strata to date fossils to date strata... -- then, yes, it would be circular reasoning. However, anyone who has taken even a few minutes to acquaint themselves with how this work is actually carried out knows that there are many dating methods available and that they agree with each other.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But specifically Creationists are notorious liars and peddlers of pseudo science..... with that kind of record why would anyone give them the time of day?



i think you will find christianity, creation is a faith.

Evolution is the pseudoscience, come religion with no empirical proof.

Look at this thread. You cant back up the science so you go on the offensive against creation and christianity.

we may be liars and peddlers but evolution is impotent when it comes to evidence and a solid reasoned argument, it always turns into what you are doing, attacking people.

You must admit that when you have to attack the person and not the argument you have lost all credibility



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

All the hard evidence for an "old Earth" has been posted numerous times on this board. That you don't understand it is your problem, not anyone else's. You're ignorant of science.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

All the hard evidence has been posted on this board numerous times. It's your own fault for not reading and understanding it.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423


In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.


geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...

Now how about telling us why these scientists are wrong because I'm going to write a letter to these institutions and tell them that I know some folks at ATS who say that they're full of SH*^%^)it. And that they have more accurate calculations.

I'm preparing the letters now.....



Ask them to prove a constant rate of decay, that will cause them to stress, maybe even pop an artery. That questions been ignored for decades, they wont answer it, why would they

It would prove all their faith in dating methods are best guess scenarios

Easy wasnt it, off you go, wait for an answer, yeah likely



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
and I am telling you your science is 200 years old and the quotes state clearly that they have been updated with estimates, estimates means guesses. that means that its all wild assumption.


That is some very crappy reasoning you got going there. Who cares how old the theory is? As long as it is the most accurate with the most up-to-date evidence, then it doesn't matter when it was first theorized. You've erected a rather large straw man here.


Go read it with your brain in the on position this time.

" Therefore, Divisions of Geologic Time (fig. 1) is intended to be a dynamic resource that will be modified to include accepted changes of unit names and boundary age estimates. This fact sheet is a modification of USGS Fact Sheet 2007-3015 by the U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee (2007). "

A fact sheet full of estimates, oh the irony


Of course they are estimates. That is why they show up in date ranges. We can't be exact with these things, but we can be as close as possible. Stop latching onto certain words and pretending like they are the key to debunking the theory. Go read and understand the theory first THEN discuss it. Of course you won't do that. Your favorite arguing tactic is the strawman. And I don't expect you to abandon that any time soon.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Here's a list of geological journals. The majority has published papers on some aspect of radiometric dating. Why don't you pick out a few articles and tell us why they're wrong? Then I can write to all these journals and tell them they should retract all their work because the folks at ATS and Ken Ham know better!

Multi-disciplinary[edit]
• American Journal of Science
• Earth Interactions
• Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
• Geografiska Annaler: Series A
• Geoscientific Model Development
• Nature Geoscience
• Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas
• Zeitschrift für Geologische Wissenschaften (Journal for the Geological Sciences)
Atmospheric science[edit]
• Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
• Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
• Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
• Atmospheric Research
• Boundary-Layer Meteorology
• Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
• Climate Dynamics
• Climatic Change
• Climate Research
• International Journal of Biometeorology
• Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
• Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
• Journal of Climate
• Journal of Geophysical Research: section D (Atmospheres)
• Journal of Hydrometeorology
• Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
• Meteorological Monographs
• Monthly Weather Review
• National Weather Digest
• Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
• Tellus. Series A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography
• Tellus. Series B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology
• Weather and Forecasting
Geochemistry[edit]
• Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
• Organic Geochemistry
• Quaternary Geochronology
Geology[edit]
• American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
• Andean Geology
• Atlantic Geology
• Bulletin of Volcanology
• Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
• Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
• Earth and Planetary Science Letters
• GeoArabia
• Geologica Acta
• Geological Society of America Bulletin
• Geology
• Geophysical Journal International
• International Journal of Earth Sciences
• International Journal of Speleology
• Journal of Geology
• Journal of Geophysical Research: sections B (Solid Earth), F (Earth Surface), G (Biogeosciences)
• Journal of Sedimentary Research
• Journal of Structural Geology
• Journal of South American Earth Sciences
• Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
• Palaios
• Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina
• Revista Geológica de Chile
• Scripta Geologica
• Sedimentary Geology
• Sedimentology
Mineralogy and Petrology[edit]
• American Mineralogist
• Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology
• Journal of Petrology
• Mineralium Deposita
• Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry
Geophysics[edit]
• Astronomy & Geophysics
• Geophysical Journal International
• Geophysical Research Letters
• Geophysics
• Journal of Geophysical Research
• Journal of Geophysics and Engineering
• Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
• Reviews of Geophysics
• Tectonophysics (journal)
Hydrology[edit]
• Journal of Hydrology
• Water Research
• Water Resources Research
Oceanography[edit]
• Annual Review of Marine Science
• Journal of Geophysical Research: section C (Oceans)
• Journal of Physical Oceanography
• Ocean Science
• Paleoceanography



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423


In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.


geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...

Now how about telling us why these scientists are wrong because I'm going to write a letter to these institutions and tell them that I know some folks at ATS who say that they're full of SH*^%^)it. And that they have more accurate calculations.

I'm preparing the letters now.....



Ask them to prove a constant rate of decay, that will cause them to stress, maybe even pop an artery. That questions been ignored for decades, they wont answer it, why would they

It would prove all their faith in dating methods are best guess scenarios

Easy wasnt it, off you go, wait for an answer, yeah likely




Well since you asked, I happened to have done that very calculation myself on Uranium. Here's the link - any questions, let me know.

www.screencast.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

First those are the same sites, quite simply your creationist dogma has been forced to a non .edu home




Thus it is the same source.

Next, your source is non peer reviewed, and non scientific. Hence as an antidote I posted a credible one.

Your source is meaningless.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Here's one for rate constant calculations which I did - please let me know where I went wrong - I've been using these algorithms for years now!!! OMG - imagine the errors in my publications???!@#$%

www.screencast.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch

Here's one for rate constant calculations which I did - please let me know where I went wrong - I've been using these algorithms for years now!!! OMG - imagine the errors in my publications???!@#$%

www.screencast.com...




where is the evidence that its constant rate of decay since inception, FACEPALM
Its not that hard to understand surely

I never asked for a rate of constant calculations, I asked for proof of a constant rate of breakdown, decay
How is that not understandable, how can you not get what I asked for.

Prove a constant state of decay from the beginning, do you have any scientific comprehension skills?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Once again, you are ignorant of science and mathematics. The first link is from - as you call it - inception - from the beginning - from naturium - the first element. There aren't enough emoticons on the planet at this point




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
i think you will find christianity, creation is a faith.


Both involve having a belief in something for which there is no evidence.


Evolution is the pseudoscience, come religion with no empirical proof.


I know you really really want this to be true so you can pretend that science and religion are on an equal footing, but you'd have to redefine both terms quite a bit for it to be true.


Look at this thread. You cant back up the science so you go on the offensive against creation and christianity.


You're a serial denier of anything scientific that conflicts with your superstitions, so whenever you, specifically you, make comments like that you can actually hear people rolling their eyes....


we may be liars and peddlers


Touché


but evolution is impotent when it comes to evidence and a solid reasoned argument, it always turns into what you are doing, attacking people.

You must admit that when you have to attack the person and not the argument you have lost all credibility


Not when the person or people in question have deserved reputations for lying and peddling pseudoscience.......they can be dismissed without any hesitation.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You don't understand science or mathematics so I don't think you'll understand spectra either. But what the hell......


Spectra of decay particles:




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch


Its ludicrous because I am supposed to believe your word, back it up with evidence, show me where its been changed because my research shows it hasnt


You're not very good at research, to be honest


The International Commission on Stratigraphy is the largest and oldest constituent scientific body in the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). Its primary objective is to precisely define global units (systems, series, and stages) of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart that, in turn, are the basis for the units (periods, epochs, and age) of the International Geologic Time Scale; thus setting global standards for the fundamental scale for expressing the history of the Earth.


Source

Frankly, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time and energy on this thread for obvious reasons. Right from the get-go, with the very first link provided, it was obvious this was a creationist muddlepuddle.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join