94 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

This is at least better in understanding your viewpoints, especially when we are from different fields and we analyse the same issue from different perspectives. Debate is not just about the people involved in the debate, it is also helpful for others to see the two sides of arguments to allow them to gain a better understanding of topic in contention.

Do not presume to lecture me on the procedure or debating, thank you.
It is notable that that you have not made any comment on the definition I have provided and clarified. Are you going to respond?
 

By the half-life concept, the decay will follow an exponential decay but I don't think there's anyone who has ever even gathered data for the full decay of any radioactive compounds used for radiometric dating simply because there's no single effort to trace these radioactive compounds for thousands of years or above. Therefore, this remains a theoretical concept and have not been proven. Hence, whether half-life is constant or not is still disputable. Unproven does not mean that it is right, it just means that it is still debatable until clear evidence has surfaced.

Wrong. I have explained why this is fallacious twice already.
 

What I have highlighted earlier is not about proving that half-life is constant, but mainly due to the shorter half-life of carbon isotopes, we are able to test it against the evolution timeline. Below is what is being quoted from the earlier link that I have posted, not sure if you have taken a look at it.
 
"Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years."

"The C14 in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks".
This is a quote from an expert in Mass Spectrometry and C14 dating.
 

The field of engineering and science all uses the same set of scientific approaches to come up with any conclusions and here I specially highlighted the small increment of control variables as analogy to increment of small time interval. I don't see the inappropriateness of this analogy. Systems and fields may be different, but the key concept of scientific approach is universal.

The analogy was not apt. Your result did not match predictions, so you concluded that your entire methodology was flawed and threw it out. Radiometric dating does meet predictions.
 

Can you provide the links or evidence to different multiple data sources?

Talk Origins has an excellent collation of radiometric dating results.

[Grandmaster]

Do not presume to lecture me on the procedure or debating, thank you.
It is notable that that you have not made any comment on the definition I have provided and clarified. Are you going to respond?
 

Wrong. I have explained why this is fallacious twice already.
 

"The C14 in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks".
This is a quote from an expert in Mass Spectrometry and C14 dating.
 

The analogy was not apt. Your result did not match predictions, so you concluded that your entire methodology was flawed and threw it out. Radiometric dating does meet predictions.
 

Talk Origins has an excellent collation of radiometric dating results.

 

I'll respond at a more appropriate time. There are still 2 more points that I have not substantiated but I will need to settle the first point first.

 

Basically, based on scientific approach, there are two things that no one has proven empirically and accurately:

1. The real half-life of radioactive compounds

2. Whether half-life remains constant throughout the full decay cycle

 

Without the basis of empirical data, theories can be accepted or rejected easily no matter how established it is.

 

When you quote someone, at least give the name of the person or a link to prove that there is indeed such person. I can also investigate further when did the person say that and did the person continue to hold that view. Also the quote itself also does not support your point. The word "probably" shows that the person is just speculating that there is such a possible reason for that. But he/she may not have even proven it.

 

For the link that you have provided, there are a few things that I would like to highlight.

1. All references given in the article were 1990 or older. The link that I have provided uses reference that is more recent, the newest reference is 2007 while the RATE group finding was conducted in 1997. There should have at least be more contemporary references for such a topic that is in the forefront of Scientific Field.

2. All different methods of radiometric dating used in the analysis were all those compounds with half-life longer than thousands of years. So they all can be questioned on the exact same point whether the extrapolated results were good approximations. Another recent findings about possible variations in half-life in 2010: http://phys.org/news202456660.html

[Mathilda]

I'm always a bit surprise to see creationiste... Specially when they say they have seen their theory in school. Hell, I went to a catholic high school, and the teachers would have been murdered by the parents if they try to push creationisme toward us. Canada I guess (not trying t make a point, just sharing an interesting fact.)

 

 

So, to jump in the debate about the lack of proof on the evolutions theory: I think it's hardcore fact, and in no way simply a theory. Here are my argumentation: (sorry in advance for the probably horrifically butchered english, again, I'm french and higly complexe scientific terminology are not show to us in school)

 

Creationist argue that the earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old. One of the oldest building in humanity history, a tomb at the Mont St-Michel, can be dated to at least 4500 BC. But that's still pretty close to the creationist theory, right? 

 

Apparently some people are arguing about the carbons datations tecnique. I really don't have the background to argue this point, so i'm simply not going to do it, even if i'm sure that carbons dating is pretty acurate.

 

But the probably most interesting point is the fact that we have found FROZEN animals older than the creationism. Wolly mammoth have been found dating from 30 000BC in russia, and i'm pretty sure it's easier/much more precise to date from frozen cells then fossils.

 

We also can argue the age of the earth by looking up. Light speed is consistant, right? So the fact that we can see stars that are actually 100 000 years light away from us, that the light have the actual time to reach us, should be a proof by itself that the earth is much older than what creationist think!

 

There is also tectonical activity. We can pricesly mesuure the hight of say, himalaya, and scientist have realise that it's still growing. At this point, it's simply a questions of math: The Himalayans where flat happy land almost a million years ago. Fact by science. 

 

All this to say that there is much, muuuuch more than carbons datations to prove that earth is older than 6000 years. 

[Grandmaster]

I'm always a bit surprise to see creationiste... Specially when they say they have seen their theory in school. Hell, I went to a catholic high school, and the teachers would have been murdered by the parents if they try to push creationisme toward us. Canada I guess (not trying t make a point, just sharing an interesting fact.)

 

 

So, to jump in the debate about the lack of proof on the evolutions theory: I think it's hardcore fact, and in no way simply a theory. Here are my argumentation: (sorry in advance for the probably horrifically butchered english, again, I'm french and higly complexe scientific terminology are not show to us in school)

 

Creationist argue that the earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old. One of the oldest building in humanity history, a tomb at the Mont St-Michel, can be dated to at least 4500 BC. But that's still pretty close to the creationist theory, right? 

 

Apparently some people are arguing about the carbons datations tecnique. I really don't have the background to argue this point, so i'm simply not going to do it, even if i'm sure that carbons dating is pretty acurate.

 

But the probably most interesting point is the fact that we have found FROZEN animals older than the creationism. Wolly mammoth have been found dating from 30 000BC in russia, and i'm pretty sure it's easier/much more precise to date from frozen cells then fossils.

 

We also can argue the age of the earth by looking up. Light speed is consistant, right? So the fact that we can see stars that are actually 100 000 years light away from us, that the light have the actual time to reach us, should be a proof by itself that the earth is much older than what creationist think!

 

There is also tectonical activity. We can pricesly mesuure the hight of say, himalaya, and scientist have realise that it's still growing. At this point, it's simply a questions of math: The Himalayans where flat happy land almost a million years ago. Fact by science. 

 

All this to say that there is much, muuuuch more than carbons datations to prove that earth is older than 6000 years. 

 

Actually, this is not a debate of creation theory vs evolution theory, but just to prove whether evolution theory is a fact or merely a theory. In fact, I think there are more people who would conclude that at the current stage of science and technology, we are still unable to be certain of both theories. There are evidences from both theories and a lot of time they can be contradicting. Only time will tell which theory will eventually be confirmed and become a science fact.

 

Whether it is building or frozen fossils, the primary form of determining their age is still through radiometric dating. That's why the argument about the radiometric dating is quite central to the argument. If the half-life radioactive compounds used in radiometric dating is incorrectly predicted or changes over time, then the age of these building or frozen fossils may also be changed and we would arrive at a different conclusion.

 

As for seeing stars which are light years away, the claim that 100,000 light years is being measured is also exaggerated. Based on current technology, scientist can only measure up to 20 light years accurately and light speed is only consistent in vacuum, if there are mediums in between, the light speed also changes. Reference: http://amazingdiscov...tyears_distance

 

As for the tectonical activity, there are also alternative views especially due to the recent rapid uplift of mountains. Reference: http://www.icr.org/i...tion=view&ID=98

 

There are also further evidence about a young Earth: http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

 

Another food for thought (something that would likely gather more attention in the near future):

 

A decade ago, when everyone is still debating about the effects of global warming, there are divided views about how global warming can affect the Earth. Back then, there are some people who even argued that global warming is good for the Earth (Source: http://www.theguardi...t.climatechange) while others see the effects of global warming only in the much distant future.

 

Yet today, just 10 years from then, many countries have started experiencing extreme climate changes and unprecedent number of nature disasters happening all around the world. It seems that the global warming has become an accepted fact and reports about effects of global warming are becoming more prevalent: http://www.slate.com...warming_on.html

 

However, if we look at the contributing factors towards global warming, it is mainly due to industrialisation that can be dated back to 1750 (Source: http://www.achistory...rlia-ls1-1.html). It means that just over a span of nearly 260 years, our Earth's condition has severely deterioriated. If the Earth is 45 billions old, how is it possible for such a small time range to make such drastic impact? But if Earth is only thousands of years, then that span of time period is no longer considered trivial and the explanation becomes more reasonable.

Edited by Grandmaster, 09 May 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Sweeney]

I'll respond at a more appropriate time. There are still 2 more points that I have not substantiated but I will need to settle the first point first.
 
Basically, based on scientific approach, there are two things that no one has proven empirically and accurately:
1. The real half-life of radioactive compounds
2. Whether half-life remains constant throughout the full decay cycle

Nothing is ever proven empirically or scientifically, because the scientific method does not deal in proofs. That's only for pure mathematics and detective novels.
 

Without the basis of empirical data, theories can be accepted or rejected easily no matter how established it is.

Do you really think that the old Earth is universally accepted by scientists (or at least, those without a religious agenda) without any evidence?
 

When you quote someone, at least give the name of the person or a link to prove that there is indeed such person. I can also investigate further when did the person say that and did the person continue to hold that view. Also the quote itself also does not support your point. The word "probably" shows that the person is just speculating that there is such a possible reason for that. But he/she may not have even proven it.

You used the presence of carbon 14 in coal as evidence for a young Earth. I was merely pointing out that there are other explanations. Ones that better fit with literally everything else we know about geology.
 

For the link that you have provided, there are a few things that I would like to highlight.
1. All references given in the article were 1990 or older. The link that I have provided uses reference that is more recent, the newest reference is 2007 while the RATE group finding was conducted in 1997. There should have at least be more contemporary references for such a topic that is in the forefront of Scientific Field.

Irrelevant. The age of a finding does not have any effect on its accuracy, unless it has been directly superceded by newer data. You cannot find better data than this old data, because it does not exist.

2. All different methods of radiometric dating used in the analysis were all those compounds with half-life longer than thousands of years. So they all can be questioned on the exact same point whether the extrapolated results were good approximations. Another recent findings about possible variations in half-life in 2010: http://phys.org/news202456660.html

Christ. It doesn't matter.
If half-lives were variable, then these data points would not all agree on the age of the solar system - some would read older, and some would read newer. But they don't. Because half-lives are constant on average.
The fluctuations mentioned in that phys.org article are microscopic. "Fractions of a percent" is the term used, and the author of the study states quite clearly that their findings are "unlikely to affect any major anthropological findings.

To support a 6000 year old Earth, our estimates would have to be out by 99.9%... to say that a finding of cyclical fluctuations of less than 1% support that is ridiculous.

Actually, this is not a debate of creation theory vs evolution theory, but just to prove whether evolution theory is a fact or merely a theory. In fact, I think there are more people who would conclude that at the current stage of science and technology, we are still unable to be certain of both theories. There are evidences from both theories and a lot of time they can be contradicting. Only time will tell which theory will eventually be confirmed and become a science fact.

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory actually is: a framework of explanations that fit with all current and relevant observations, supported by the overwhelming mass of evidence on the subject.
You'll note the "supported by evidence" part - a scientific theory is not any old hypothesis that a dude in a labcoat pulls out of his ass.
 

Whether it is building or frozen fossils, the primary form of determining their age is still through radiometric dating. That's why the argument about the radiometric dating is quite central to the argument. If the half-life radioactive compounds used in radiometric dating is incorrectly predicted or changes over time, then the age of these building or frozen fossils may also be changed and we would arrive at a different conclusion.

But there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and plenty of evidence to suggest that it isn't. Belabouring the "radiometric dating is flawed" argument is spurious, and a waste of everybodies time.
 

As for seeing stars which are light years away, the claim that 100,000 light years is being measured is also exaggerated. Based on current technology, scientist can only measure up to 20 light years accurately and light speed is only consistent in vacuum, if there are mediums in between, the light speed also changes. Reference: http://amazingdiscov...tyears_distance

Are you serious? You're disputing star measurements based on the fact that they are calculated from extrapolated data?
Scientists aren't allowed to use math to work things out anymore?
 

As for the tectonical activity, there are also alternative views especially due to the recent rapid uplift of mountains. Reference: http://www.icr.org/i...tion=view&ID=98

It's likely that the energy unleashed in this "Biblical Flood"-based interpretation of mountain formation would have vaporised the oceans and obliterated most of the Earth.
The Great Flood did not happen.
 

There are also further evidence about a young Earth: http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

This is called debating by flood (interesting, that) - bombarding your conversation partner with so much information that it would take literally hours to go through it all.
Thus, I am happy to ignore it.
 

Another food for thought (something that would likely gather more attention in the near future):
 
A decade ago, when everyone is still debating about the effects of global warming, there are divided views about how global warming can affect the Earth. Back then, there are some people who even argued that global warming is good for the Earth (Source: http://www.theguardi...t.climatechange) while others see the effects of global warming only in the much distant future.
 
Yet today, just 10 years from then, many countries have started experiencing extreme climate changes and unprecedent number of nature disasters happening all around the world. It seems that the global warming has become an accepted fact and reports about effects of global warming are becoming more prevalent: http://www.slate.com...warming_on.html
 
However, if we look at the contributing factors towards global warming, it is mainly due to industrialisation that can be dated back to 1750 (Source: http://www.achistory...rlia-ls1-1.html). It means that just over a span of nearly 260 years, our Earth's condition has severely deterioriated. If the Earth is 45 billions old, how is it possible for such a small time range to make such drastic impact? But if Earth is only thousands of years, then that span of time period is no longer considered trivial and the explanation becomes more reasonable.

How is it possible for such a small time frame to have such a drastic impact?
You're joking again, right? You're, what, 16 years old? It would takes someone only seconds to break your leg. How can such a small time frame have such a drastic impact?

It's funny that you're an engineer, and yet you don't seem to understand to concept of an impulse. Namely, that a constant force will have a larger effect if applied over a short timespan, than over a longer one. The same principle applies to global warming - we have dumped so much carbon dioxide (among other things, but let's play for simplicity here) into the atmosphere in such a short time, that the natural carbon cycle is unable to sequester enough of it to prevent a global disaster.

The short time frame is not a problem, here, it's practically the explanation.

[Grandmaster]

Throughout the history of Science, science theories and laws were constantly being challenged and quite a number of them being superceded or completely replaced by new science theories and laws. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories). Indeed, scientists, researches and engineers have all been trained to be critical thinkers and question the fundamentals and methodology of science theories and laws, not blindly accept whatever that is being established. It is with this mindset that we have advanced so far in Science and not remain stagnant in the progress of Science by restricting our thoughts to only already existing theories and laws.

 

One of the prime examples of such a challenge is Albert Einstein’s proposal of special theory of relativity to complement the Newton Laws. When the theory was first postulated, more than 100 scientists opposed to that theory because Newton Laws have been basically almost universally accepted and being taught in institutions. Suddenly, it becomes just half-truth and cannot be applied to speeds approaching light speed in vacuum. But today, this theory has been firmly embedded in Modern Physics. The primary reason for this change is due to empirical observations of many experiments that coincide with this theory but could not be explained by Newton Laws or classical physics (Source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html). This is also likewise for many other revolutionary science theories and laws. Therefore, empirical observations from experiments form the cornerstone of scientific discovery.

 

In order to maintain the professionalism of engineers, different global professional bodies such as IEEE, ASME, etc have established engineering ethics for engineers. For research, the engineering ethics have identified 4 primary forms of dishonesty, namely, trimming, cooking, forging and plagiarism. Trimming and plagiarism is quite self-explanatory. Cooking means retaining only results that fit the theory and discard the rest. Forging means inventing some or all of the research data that are reported or reporting experiments to obtain the data that was never performed. Extrapolating results basically fall under forging because the data points for the extrapolated results are all invented, not through empirical observation.

 

The reason why the science community continues to tolerate extrapolated results for half-life is because of the difficulty involved in getting empirical data. However, once there are sufficient empirical results to disprove the extrapolated results, the extrapolated results will no longer be accepted. There are moves in this direction such as RATE group experiment, decay rates vary with sun’s rotation experiment. While they cannot be used to fully disprove evolution theory, their presence can no longer be neglected and will hence spur more experiments in those areas. With more empirical observations from more experiments, we can then be able to examine whether evolution theory can be more universally accepted. But before that happens, evolution theory still remains controversial.

 

As for the isochron dating method in talkorigins, there is also an article (Source: http://www.tccsa.tc/...isochrons2.html) to point out the flaws in the method. Basically, due to several unknowns in this method of calculation, many unwarranted assumptions such as same initial strontium ratio, "closed" system and independent equations are adopted. There is also no time significance for this method so the calculation of years is all based on the unknowns which are in turn based on the unwarranted assumptions.

 

It’s surprising that you used the analogy of broken limps and impulse for argument as a supporter of evolutionary theory. The primary reason why there is a need for such an old Earth in support of evolutionary theory is that all evolutions took place very slowly and any acute climate change would have destroyed the species before they can even evolve. If evolutionary theory is true and impulse is also applicable in this analysis, then most of the species will have been destroyed by now. Anyway, even for an impulse, although it is possible to have infinite magnitude in theory, most impulses do not have exceedingly high value. Comparing between 4.5 billion years and 10,000 years, the impulse magnitude would be 4.5billion/260=17 million and 10,000/260=50 respectively. So it is quite obvious that impulse magnitude of 50 would be more reasonable than 17 million.

 

This is called debating by flood (interesting, that) - bombarding your conversation partner with so much information that it would take literally hours to go through it all. Thus, I am happy to ignore it.

 

 

I’m providing him with information to see that there are many alternative arguments to what he/she may consider science facts. It’s more objective to look at both sides of arguments, rather than just thinking about one-sided evidence or argument. If you have truly considered both sides of arguments, it shouldn’t take you too long to go through the arguments since you would have known most of the arguments. Anyway, debate does not necessary need you to reply within hours, you can always take your time to digest the information others have given and reply when you are ready. There is usually no winner in such debates so what’s important is lifelong learning.

 

You used the presence of carbon 14 in coal as evidence for a young Earth. I was merely pointing out that there are other explanations. Ones that better fit with literally everything else we know about geology.

 

This is a double standard. A causal statement by some experts of unknown name without any prove is credible but all logical arguments and some empirical observations by others are not credible? It is necessary to be more objective in evaluating the credibility.

 

As for the analogy you try to disapprove, it’s not really a false analogy. It has several similar characteristics, in both cases, they are scientific experiments, they used empirical observations, they used part of the results to extrapolate the results. The only thing different is that one already has conclusion while the other remains unknown.

[Sweeney]

Throughout the history of Science, science theories and laws were constantly being challenged and quite a number of them being superceded or completely replaced by new science theories and laws. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories). Indeed, scientists, researches and engineers have all been trained to be critical thinkers and question the fundamentals and methodology of science theories and laws, not blindly accept whatever that is being established. It is with this mindset that we have advanced so far in Science and not remain stagnant in the progress of Science by restricting our thoughts to only already existing theories and laws.
 
One of the prime examples of such a challenge is Albert Einstein’s proposal of special theory of relativity to complement the Newton Laws. When the theory was first postulated, more than 100 scientists opposed to that theory because Newton Laws have been basically almost universally accepted and being taught in institutions. Suddenly, it becomes just half-truth and cannot be applied to speeds approaching light speed in vacuum. But today, this theory has been firmly embedded in Modern Physics. The primary reason for this change is due to empirical observations of many experiments that coincide with this theory but could not be explained by Newton Laws or classical physics (Source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html). This is also likewise for many other revolutionary science theories and laws. Therefore, empirical observations from experiments form the cornerstone of scientific discovery.

This is not a valid argument against acceptance of evolutionary theory.
Paradigm shifts occur in the fact of criticism because of the overwhelming weight of evidence in their favour. This means that the new theory must explain everything that the old theory explained, preferably better, as well as covering new observations that the old theory did not.
This is why Newtonian gravity has been functionally replaced by relativity. This is why evolution replaced all other origin theories. It explains the diversity of life better than any other theory. That is a fact.

Science doesn't ever claim to be right. Just less wrong than it was last year.
 

In order to maintain the professionalism of engineers, different global professional bodies such as IEEE, ASME, etc have established engineering ethics for engineers. For research, the engineering ethics have identified 4 primary forms of dishonesty, namely, trimming, cooking, forging and plagiarism. Trimming and plagiarism is quite self-explanatory. Cooking means retaining only results that fit the theory and discard the rest. Forging means inventing some or all of the research data that are reported or reporting experiments to obtain the data that was never performed. Extrapolating results basically fall under forging because the data points for the extrapolated results are all invented, not through empirical observation.

Uh. No.
Extrapolating results to make predictions is the best way we have of disproving scientific theories.
 

The reason why the science community continues to tolerate extrapolated results for half-life is because of the difficulty involved in getting empirical data. However, once there are sufficient empirical results to disprove the extrapolated results, the extrapolated results will no longer be accepted. There are moves in this direction such as RATE group experiment, decay rates vary with sun’s rotation experiment. While they cannot be used to fully disprove evolution theory, their presence can no longer be neglected and will hence spur more experiments in those areas. With more empirical observations from more experiments, we can then be able to examine whether evolution theory can be more universally accepted. But before that happens, evolution theory still remains controversial.

The RATE group experiment noted infinitessimal, cyclical variations in decay. The project leader (I think) noted that it was unlikely to affect any anthropological findings. This extends to the age of the Earth.
The reason we use extrapolated data is because we do not have better data, and the data we have works. If it didn't work, if it didn't agree, we would not use it. It's really that simple.
 

As for the isochron dating method in talkorigins, there is also an article (Source: http://www.tccsa.tc/...isochrons2.html) to point out the flaws in the method. Basically, due to several unknowns in this method of calculation, many unwarranted assumptions such as same initial strontium ratio, "closed" system and independent equations are adopted. There is also no time significance for this method so the calculation of years is all based on the unknowns which are in turn based on the unwarranted assumptions.

I'm going to repeat this for you again:
If the assumptions were not valid, there would be no reason for all the data points to agree.
But they do.

Thus, the assumptions are valid.
 

It’s surprising that you used the analogy of broken limps and impulse for argument as a supporter of evolutionary theory. The primary reason why there is a need for such an old Earth in support of evolutionary theory is that all evolutions took place very slowly and any acute climate change would have destroyed the species before they can even evolve. If evolutionary theory is true and impulse is also applicable in this analysis, then most of the species will have been destroyed by now. Anyway, even for an impulse, although it is possible to have infinite magnitude in theory, most impulses do not have exceedingly high value. Comparing between 4.5 billion years and 10,000 years, the impulse magnitude would be 4.5billion/260=17 million and 10,000/260=50 respectively. So it is quite obvious that impulse magnitude of 50 would be more reasonable than 17 million.

Those are some lovely arbitrary numbers.
Sudden environmental change is one of the major driving forces behind evolutionary change - it is not a barrier to evolution.
 
 

I’m providing him with information to see that there are many alternative arguments to what he/she may consider science facts. It’s more objective to look at both sides of arguments, rather than just thinking about one-sided evidence or argument. If you have truly considered both sides of arguments, it shouldn’t take you too long to go through the arguments since you would have known most of the arguments. Anyway, debate does not necessary need you to reply within hours, you can always take your time to digest the information others have given and reply when you are ready. There is usually no winner in such debates so what’s important is lifelong learning.

I suggest you stick to replying directly to the other party, or bringing up one or two new, salient points.
That would be more appropriate debating etiquette.
  

This is a double standard. A causal statement by some experts of unknown name without any prove is credible but all logical arguments and some empirical observations by others are not credible? It is necessary to be more objective in evaluating the credibility.

No, see, you don't evaluate an argument based on who said it. You evaluate it on its own merits.
The possibility of organism-influenced core readings is real. Probable, even.
The possibility of a 99.9% error in decay rate measurements is pure fantasy.
 

As for the analogy you try to disapprove, it’s not really a false analogy. It has several similar characteristics, in both cases, they are scientific experiments, they used empirical observations, they used part of the results to extrapolate the results. The only thing different is that one already has conclusion while the other remains unknown.

No! The analogy would be more approriate if you were comparing multiple methods of measuring flow rate, and they all agreed with each other - even though the value you wanted to see was different. Because all radiometric dating agrees that the universe, solar system and Earth are old as balls, and there are only ideological reasons to disagree with that.

[Grandmaster]

The RATE group experiment noted infinitessimal, cyclical variations in decay. The project leader (I think) noted that it was unlikely to affect any anthropological findings. This extends to the age of the Earth.
The reason we use extrapolated data is because we do not have better data, and the data we have works. If it didn't work, if it didn't agree, we would not use it. It's really that simple.
 

I'm going to repeat this for you again:
If the assumptions were not valid, there would be no reason for all the data points to agree.
But they do.

Thus, the assumptions are valid.

 

Btw, there are two evidence I mentioned. One is RATE group experiment and the other one is decay rates vary with sun’s rotation experiment. You seems to confuse the two. The one about little effect at this stage is decay rates vary with sun's rotation experiment. RATE group experiment is testing using carbon dating to date the rocks to thousands of years instead of originally millions or billions of years.

 

I'm not sure if you read thoroughly the link I posted about the flaws in isochron method. Anyway, if someone uses the same method but different sets of assumptions but also showed that the data converges to thousands of years with around 10% uncertainty (just like the original isochron uncertainty range), are you going to be convinced that the rock is indeed is thousands of years of age? I may consider to do the rigourous proof if necessary but even if I have no time, I think it's possible for some proofs to be eventually shown by someone.

Edited by Grandmaster, 14 May 2014 - 07:43 AM.

[Sweeney]

Btw, there are two evidence I mentioned. One is RATE group experiment and the other one is decay rates vary with sun’s rotation experiment. You seems to confuse the two. The one about little effect at this stage is decay rates vary with sun's rotation experiment. RATE group experiment is testing using carbon dating to date the rocks to thousands of years instead of originally millions or billions of years.

Apologies, I misunderstood your sentence.
 

I'm not sure if you read thoroughly the link I posted about the flaws in isochron method. Anyway, if someone uses the same method but different sets of assumptions but also showed that the data converges to thousands of years with around 10% uncertainty (just like the original isochron uncertainty range), are you going to be convinced that the rock is indeed is thousands of years of age? I may consider to do the rigourous proof if necessary but even if I have no time, I think it's possible for some proofs to be eventually shown by someone.

If that was shown to be the case then in would raise doubts about the accuracy of the current RD assumptions.
But it hasn't been shown to be the case, and saying that you think it's possible for it to be the case is not the same thing.

[Grandmaster]

If that was shown to be the case then in would raise doubts about the accuracy of the current RD assumptions.
But it hasn't been shown to be the case, and saying that you think it's possible for it to be the case is not the same thing.

 

I haven't researched thoroughly on that so I may not know if there may already have been such proofs but I will take some time to research on that. It's not really that difficult to prove this point. We don't even need to redo the experiment all over again. Just need to make use of the original data they have collected and use another set of assumptions to recalculate the age. If no original data is found, we can use the final results and calculate backwards to get the original data.

[Sweeney]

If no original data is found, we can use the final results and calculate backwards to get the original data.

And that sums up everything that is wrong with the creation/young earth movement.

[Grandmaster]

And that sums up everything that is wrong with the creation/young earth movement.

 

What's wrong with that? The experiment was conducted and experimental data was recorded and calculations made based on a set of formula and assumptions. So by using the final results and knowing the formula and assumptions used, you would be able to get the original experimental data. If you can't get the original experimental data by this way, it means that there is something wrong with all the analysis in the first place. This is known as reverse engineering.

[Sweeney]

What's wrong with that? The experiment was conducted and experimental data was recorded and calculations made based on a set of formula and assumptions. So by using the final results and knowing the formula and assumptions used, you would be able to get the original experimental data. If you can't get the original experimental data by this way, it means that there is something wrong with all the analysis in the first place. This is known as reverse engineering.

Starting with the conclusion and working backwards to find the results that you need to back up your foregone conclusion is not science.

[Grandmaster]

Starting with the conclusion and working backwards to find the results that you need to back up your foregone conclusion is not science.

 

Most science experiments started with an hypothesis, then the hypothesis is tested, if it is in line with experimental results, then it is accepted as a valid hypothesis. Only when there are other experiments that contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is re-examined again and revised to be able to explain the whole phenomenon better.

[Sweeney]

Most science experiments started with an hypothesis, then the hypothesis is tested, if it is in line with experimental results, then it is accepted as a valid hypothesis. Only when there are other experiments that contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is re-examined again and revised to be able to explain the whole phenomenon better.

Yes, tested. By actively trying to disprove the hypothesis.
Taking a set of calculated results and working backwards to fabricate raw data is nothing like the same as that.

[Grandmaster]

Yes, tested. By actively trying to disprove the hypothesis.
Taking a set of calculated results and working backwards to fabricate raw data is nothing like the same as that.

 

If all the raw data is recorded properly and we can easily access them, we would just need to use the raw data directly to recalculate based on the new set of assumptions. But just because the raw data may sometimes be unavailable or not access properly, we have to work backwards. Since the formula and assumptions can be found more easily (usually the paper that proposes will contain these information), the raw data should be able to derive without much problem and inaccuracy.

Edited by Grandmaster, 14 May 2014 - 03:12 PM.

[Sweeney]

If all the raw data is recorded properly and we can easily access them, we would just need to use the raw data directly to recalculate based on the new set of assumptions. But just because the raw data may sometimes be unavailable or not access properly, we have to work backwards. Since the formula and assumptions can be found more easily (usually the paper that proposes will contain these information), the raw data should be able to derive without much problem and inaccuracy.

The research paper will contain all the raw data. That is what research papers are for.

[Grandmaster]

The research paper will contain all the raw data. That is what research papers are for.

 

Yeah, in thoery, that is supposed to happen. But so far, I have yet to see this happening especially in my field. The IEEE papers all have to be summarised within 6-7 pages so they don't usually contain any raw data at all but they do show the results of the raw data such as graphs. So other people can try to reproduce the results. Even in thesis, we are also told not to put up all the raw data, just the analysis of the results but we have to provide methodology that allows people to reproduce the results as far as possible.

 

Btw, do you have raw data for the talkorigins isochron method? Any links?

[Sweeney]

Yeah, in thoery, that is supposed to happen. But so far, I have yet to see this happening especially in my field. The IEEE papers all have to be summarised within 6-7 pages so they don't usually contain any raw data at all but they do show the results of the raw data such as graphs. So other people can try to reproduce the results. Even in thesis, we are also told not to put up all the raw data, just the analysis of the results but we have to provide methodology that allows people to reproduce the results as far as possible.
 
Btw, do you have raw data for the talkorigins isochron method? Any links?

Perhaps you should try looking at some actual primary research papers.

[Padme]

I don't have a rebuttal only my answer to the posters question. I believe evolution is a fact and always have even though I was born and raised Roman Catholic even through primary and secondary schooling systems. We were taught what the bible said, even had professors from our local university (UofAlberta) come and talk to us about their ideas, some of whom had ideas of how creation & evolution can coincide. I would like to think there is more to this world but thats for personal comfort. Evolution is a fact and I think even creationists are either ignoring the facts or just ignorant to them.