Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Astronomy
 More scientific educated guesses
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2010 :  15:40:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote


Rock dating to estimate the age of fossils, for one thing, They use a process called radiometric dating,


You didn't even know that radiometric dating existed and that it was the method by which fossils were dated until filthy corrected you (In the Noah's Ark thread). In that thread, you dismissed carbon dating.

I guarantee that you don't know jack about radiometric dating. Prove me wrong. Humiliate me. Explain how radiometric dating is supposed to work and why that assumption is wrong.

Please lay waste to my petty assumptions. I really really REALLY want my limited worldview shaken and torn to pieces. I have no doubt that I will be left speechless.

CAUTION: claiming that there is some undefined "gotcha" in my above request is not permitted. In short, that's a coward's cop out.

but there's no way to relate it (radiometric dating) with our modern meaning of time,


Did you just take a bong hit when you came up with that cosmic statement?

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2010 :  15:45:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

Ok, you've got it: Paleontology; I'll argue from the side of science. Open a thread and let's rock!>>

This isn't exactly opening a new thread.

Rock dating to estimate the age of fossils, for one thing, They use a process called radiometric dating, but there's no way to relate it with our modern meaning of time, so it's another example of scientific educated guesses. It's Okay, though. Nobody gets hurt and it's a paying occupation.

cantbe323

There you go again; an unsupported statement and therefore not acceptable. References, please.

Radiometric dating is a highly useful tool for dating strata, not bones. And not just any, old rock can be dated with the process. Only igneous rocks contain the various isotopes necessary.
Introduction
[T]his document discusses the way radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are used to establish the conventional geological time scale. It is not about the theory behind radiometric dating methods, it is about their application, and it therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with the technique already (refer to "Other Sources" for more information). As an example of how they are used, radiometric dates from geologically simple, fossiliferous Cretaceous rocks in western North America are compared to the geological time scale. To get to that point, there is also a historical discussion and description of non-radiometric dating methods.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 02/25/2010 15:49:46
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26021 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2010 :  18:45:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

They use a process called radiometric dating, but there's no way to relate it with our modern meaning of time...
Can this even be counted as a debate argument? What the heck does "relate it with our modern meaning of time" even mean? Is cantbe asserting that radiometric dating was developed using some historical meaning of time that's invalid today, and the new meaning can't be applied? Before any substantive response can be made to the quoted statement, cantbe is going to have to do some explaining.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2010 :  21:19:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by filthy

They use a process called radiometric dating, but there's no way to relate it with our modern meaning of time...
Can this even be counted as a debate argument? What the heck does "relate it with our modern meaning of time" even mean? Is cantbe asserting that radiometric dating was developed using some historical meaning of time that's invalid today, and the new meaning can't be applied? Before any substantive response can be made to the quoted statement, cantbe is going to have to do some explaining.
Bingo, Dave! Radiometric dating must be calibrated under the Julian calender.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2010 :  03:06:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by filthy

They use a process called radiometric dating, but there's no way to relate it with our modern meaning of time...
Can this even be counted as a debate argument? What the heck does "relate it with our modern meaning of time" even mean? Is cantbe asserting that radiometric dating was developed using some historical meaning of time that's invalid today, and the new meaning can't be applied? Before any substantive response can be made to the quoted statement, cantbe is going to have to do some explaining.
Bingo, Dave! Radiometric dating must be calibrated under the Julian calender.
*shrug* Or the Mayan....




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2010 :  12:51:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Is cantbe asserting that radiometric dating was developed using some historical meaning of time that's invalid today, and the new meaning can't be applied? Before any substantive response can be made to the quoted statement, cantbe is going to have to do some explaining.
>>

Hold a rock in one hand and a watch in the other hand. You'll note that time moves on, tick, tick, tick, but the rock stays as it is. Simplistic, yes, but so are many of the other things we do, day in, day out.

So time, as we accept it, is based on the human experience, not the age of rocks or other unprovable theories.

cantbe323

Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2010 :  13:03:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You didn't even know that radiometric dating existed and that it was the method by which fossils were dated until filthy corrected you (In the Noah's Ark thread). >>

True, I goofed. There's still a lot I don't know about scientific theory, but that doesn't mean my mind is set in concrete. I still have all kinds of conventional books and other sources I can refer to.

cantbe323
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2010 :  13:36:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
cantbe323:
Hold a rock in one hand and a watch in the other hand. You'll note that time moves on, tick, tick, tick, but the rock stays as it is. Simplistic, yes, but so are many of the other things we do, day in, day out.

So time, as we accept it, is based on the human experience, not the age of rocks or other unprovable theories.

And radioactive isotopes in igneous rocks have a set rate of decay that can be extrapolated back with accuracy. Did you open the link I gave you? All is explained in it.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2010 :  15:56:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Shit, this ain't a debate; this is me chasing cantbe all over the boards.

When, cantbe, are you going to rebut my radiometric dating remarks. Are you ever, or you just going to keep fomenting nonsense?

Do you even know how to debate? I think not, otherwise we'd be going at it hammer & tongs.






"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26021 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2010 :  19:18:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

Hold a rock in one hand and a watch in the other hand. You'll note that time moves on, tick, tick, tick, but the rock stays as it is. Simplistic, yes, but so are many of the other things we do, day in, day out.
Indeed, and science is the process of rejecting the simplicity of everyday experience in favor of reality. Because the rock is changing, moment by moment, even if you can't see it with your bare eyes.
So time, as we accept it, is based on the human experience, not the age of rocks or other unprovable theories.
You've got it completely backwards. We relate the ages of rocks to measurements of times in human experience. Just like the distance from LA to Paris is measured using units that are within the realm of the "everyday," while the total distance generally isn't.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2010 :  13:44:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So time, as we accept it, is based on the human experience, not the age of rocks or other unprovable theories.>> cantbe323>>

You've got it completely backwards. We relate the ages of rocks to measurements of times in human experience.>>

Humans are more apt to grasp practical explanations, words they can visualize, things they can't relate with.

<<Just like the distance from LA to Paris is measured using units that are within the realm of the "everyday," while the total distance generally isn't.>>

That's a generally accepted fact that most can relate to, not a theory.

cantbe323
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2010 :  14:15:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The topic of out debate is Paleontology. Are you going to rebut my post or not?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26021 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2010 :  15:04:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

Humans are more apt to grasp practical explanations, words they can visualize, things they can't relate with.
Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not the science of radiometric dating is correct. Quantum theories and Relativity are very hard to grasp, but they've been wildly successful in terms of practical applications. Ease of understanding isn't a guide to truth.
That's a generally accepted fact that most can relate to, not a theory.
And the ages of rocks are facts, not theories. How those ages are measured is based on the measured facts of radioactive decay, and the direct measurement of the products of that decay within a real sample. These practical methods aren't very difficult to grasp or visualize. Yet you reject them.

 Moderation Notice 

Even though I gave you more time than I said I would, you've come up with nothing substantive in this or any other discussion. Our regular members and staff are generally clear that you're not adding anything to these forums that would be missed. Your account will now be suspended. Do not contact us for 30 days. If, after March 27, 2010, you wish to have your posting privileges reinstated, you can email me at davew@skepticfriends.org and ask.


- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2010 :  16:21:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I guess that now I never will find out what Paleontology is all about.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9687 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2010 :  03:09:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Let's hope that cantbe323 can refreign from contacting us for 30 days, if he truly is sincere in having discussions with us.

If I recall correctly, both Bigbrain's and Hybrid's egotistical desire to have the last word got the better of them, and made them post a "defence" email or register a sockpuppet to complain about unfair treatment before the time period elapsed.
Let's hope this will be a learning experience for cantbe323.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.22 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000