Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- ********0
yeah, I'm not sure of your point Tick, but yes, you cannot use Carbon-14 dating for anything older than 50K years within current evolutionary scientific thinking. Constituent minerals (chemical compounds (elements)) will not allow it.
yep
- flagellum0
YEC scientists have some things to say about Radiometric dating:
- ********0
imo, that which scientists call absolute dating is relative dating and relative dating is absurd dating.
- flagellum0
A closed case?
- bawjaws0
what's this rubbish?
- ********0
You can use fossilization as a way of dating too. Archaelogists use Dendrochronology to date strata that might not include some sort of tracking or widescale fossil, but might have a tree or two. Depends on the sedimentary rock. Igneous and Metamorphic rocks generally speaking, cannot, be used for bio-dating due to their lack of retaining fossils. But sometimes Marble can be used as it's metamorphosed limestone (aka Calcium Carbonate) and that rock type is widescale. Formed in shallow oceans.
- Bluejam0
"A person should not believe in an "-ism," he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."
F.B
- ********0
"A person should not believe in an "-ism," he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."
F.B
Bluejam
(Jan 6 06, 07:01)d*mn straight
- ********0
JaxX - my point is that it seems to me that evolutionary scientists take a range of comparable data and weigh it against each other - carbon dating being one of an array of trying to pinpoint the age of a fossil, not the sole method. From geology, to other finds in the fossil record, skeletal structure, etc...and that by using simply the known and admitted inaccuracies in carbon dating and using that as a sole point of contention by ID proponents to say the whol esystem is false seems to me both a failure of critical thinking and intellectual dishonesty of the highest sort.
- flagellum0
My personal view? The jury is still out for me on the exact age of the earth. I hover somewhere between YEC and OEC. What I am sure of is that the evidence is clear that you and I were designed and that we do no not share a direct darwinian ancestry with apelike hominids.
These scientific truths excite me and many others, which is why ID has grown to the degree that it has. :)
- ********0
depends on the elements that exist. it's almost like the legal system, if one finding is inconsistent, then it raises questions to the validity of the dating system. there have been many inconsistencies. objectively speaking of course. I don't think either side has it right. I've said this before.
- flagellum0
Tick, first of all you still misunderstand ID. There are ID proponents who accept common (not by darwinian mechanisms though) ancestry and a very old earth. ID can only detect specificity in complexity. That's all it claims. Quite modest, really. And when you take the evidence as a whole - fossils, radiometric dating, geologic column... you can only throw your hands up and say, "it's totally inconclusive."
- ********0
objectively speaking of course. I don't think either side has it right. I've said this before.
JazX
(Jan 6 06, 07:07)
------------------------
Objectively speaking though - a) who seems more honest about the process? and b) have the ID proponents come up with an alternate methodology of dating found materials?
- flagellum0
Tick, ID cannot answer the age of the earth and doesn't try to.
Tick, ID cannot answer the age of the earth and doesn't try to.
Tick, ID cannot answer the age of the earth and doesn't try to.
lol
- ********0
more honest, you say. personally, from what I know of the fossil record and the education that I received, I would side more on the side of Evolutionary Theory, however, that doesn't mean, and I can say this, without taking an absolutist viewpoint, ID raises some good questions and those questions should be given their proper due. Religious agenda pushing aside.
- ********0
JazX - I totally concur - and frankly I think that questiong methodologies and paradigms in science IS and should be part of the scientific process itself. Heck I'm reading "Investigations" by Stuart Kaufmann at the moment and a man of his stature in the scientific community is calling for a re-evaluation of certain underlying methodologies and paradigms. Heck, that's what is so refreshing - and in terms of human history - revolutionary about scientific thought.
The ID guys are playing old Socratic Sophist tricks with ;language it seems to me by sayig that "See science is inaccurate here! So therefore it casts ALL of it into doubt!"
I mean it seems to me they don't even grasp the fundamental principles that underly all of scientific enquiry to begin with. Science is all about finding better and better questions. Anything in science that doesn't lead you to another question is bad science.
ID seems all answers (and I agree that science needs to be critiqued - but then again MOST scientists would and ALL shgould agree with that). To just end up at aplace and say it is "Unreducably complex" just ain't science or reflective of the scientific method.
- Mimio0
//The truth is that "---" made everything according to it's kind, "---"'s plan was to create predator/prey and parasitic relationships, have a distinct and consitent food chain, and let bacteria and viruses change his(it's) creations genetic make-up.
- ********0
does any of this really matter ....NO
- ********0
ID seems all answers (and I agree that science needs to be critiqued - but then again MOST scientists would and ALL shgould agree with that).
TheTick
(Jan 6 06, 07:21)it's ok man, I like the way you think