Carbon Dating & Evolution

[REASON]

the weather men make predictions all the time and are wrong the majority of time.

 

some things just can't be predicted

 

I'm actually very impressed with how well Meteorologists (weathermen and women) are able to predict weather patterns with the scientific instruments used these days. Computer modeling has been a significant advancement for weather prediction in particular, and has enabled forecasters to accurately predict much farther out into the future than they were able in years past. To say they are wrong a majority of the time is an unsupported claim. I suggest that you'll find that weather forecasting is typically more than 65% accurate on average. Here's a site I quickly found, Forecast Advisor, that provides information on the accuracy of your local weather. Simply type in your zip code for local accuracy percentages by typical internet weather providers.

 

It definitely works better than praying. As I recall, all that praying going on last summer didn't do much to improve the draught conditions in Georgia and other parts of the Southeast. But I don't expect the low success rate of prayer will stop the faithful from continuing to do so. Unreliability doesn't matter in this instance does it?

 

Oh well. I guess whatever suits your fancy.

 

Meanwhile, science will continue to use tried and true dating methods in the study of fossils and strata, no matter how much the faithful try to undermine it's credibility.

[Southtown]

It [meteorology] definitely works better than praying. As I recall, all that praying going on last summer didn't do much to improve the draught conditions in Georgia and other parts of the Southeast. But I don't expect the low success rate of prayer will stop the faithful from continuing to do so. Unreliability doesn't matter in this instance does it?

Funny, I thought that floods were currently washing all their homes away. ;)

 

Meanwhile, science will continue to use tried and true dating methods in the study of fossils and strata, no matter how much the faithful try to undermine it's credibility.

My problems with dating methods do not pertain to the accuracy of decay rates, but to the supposed mechanisms of irradiation. Was everything molten at some point in the past or merely subjected to some high energy cataclysm? :doh:

[Moontanman]

Funny, I thought that floods were currently washing all their homes away. ;)

 

 

My problems with dating methods do not pertain to the accuracy of decay rates, but to the supposed mechanisms of irradiation. Was everything molten at some point in the past or merely subjected to some high energy cataclysm? :doh:

 

Actually, pretty much, yes! Is this in any real dispute?

[REASON]

Funny, I thought that floods were currently washing all their homes away. ;)

 

Is your reply here intended to suggest that you think that flooding that has been happening recently in parts of the Southeast are the latent result of the many prayers that were going on last summer? And that God's response to those prayers for relief from draught was to flood them out?

 

Is this 2008 or am I in some sort of retrograde timewarp?

 

Ultimately, my point was to say that science has helped us to understand natural weather patterns, that in our ignorance, we used to attribute acts of God. And as the science and technology has improved, our ability to predict the weather has improved as well. There is plenty of data to demonstrate this. It is not in dispute by knowledeable individuals.

 

 

My problems with dating methods do not pertain to the accuracy of decay rates, but to the supposed mechanisms of irradiation. Was everything molten at some point in the past or merely subjected to some high energy cataclysm? ;)

 

:doh:

 

Hydroplate Theory is rejected among the worlds most prominent geophysicists due to the lack of merit of it's arguments, not simply because it is a theory that has arisen out of belief in the Great Flood Story in Genesis.

 

The Earth was formed by a natural accretion process guided by the laws of physics during the natural formation of our solar system. The heat energy generated in such a process full of collisions and pressure would have made everything molten until the Earth's crust cooled and hardened over time. While there are still many details to understand and refine in this process, it is accepted science.

[C1ay]

the weather men make predictions all the time and are wrong the majority of time.

 

some things just can't be predicted

 

That's relative to one's point of view. I predict there to be a 50% chance of rain every day.......either it will or it won't!

[Southtown]

Is your reply here intended to suggest that you think that flooding that has been happening recently in parts of the Southeast are the latent result of the many prayers that were going on last summer? And that God's response to those prayers for relief from draught was to flood them out?

Haha. Careful what you ask for, ay? No, I'm just saying that the drought analogy isn't very effective given recent events. Also, people can attribute meaning to events even if they can be explained by physics, why? Because, physics describes only "how." Physics never describes "why."

 

Ultimately, my point was to say that science has helped us to understand natural weather patterns, that in our ignorance, we used to attribute acts of God. And as the science and technology has improved, our ability to predict the weather has improved as well. There is plenty of data to demonstrate this. It is not in dispute by knowledeable individuals.

I won't argue with ya here, but I do have beliefs which pertain to "why" things happen. But I won't elaborate on my beliefs here because they're irrelevant in this topic.

 

Hydroplate Theory is rejected among the worlds most prominent geophysicists due to the lack of merit of it's arguments, not simply because it is a theory that has arisen out of belief in the Great Flood Story in Genesis.

 

The Earth was formed by a natural accretion process guided by the laws of physics during the natural formation of our solar system. The heat energy generated in such a process full of collisions and pressure would have made everything molten until the Earth's crust cooled and hardened over time. While there are still many details to understand and refine in this process, it is accepted science.

Thanks for the links. I know about the standard model, though. However, not many people realize that there are quite a few possible high-energy scenarios that might irradiate our planet's crust.

[Moontanman]

Haha. Careful what you ask for, ay? No, I'm just saying that the drought analogy isn't very effective given recent events. Also, people can attribute meaning to events even if they can be explained by physics, why? Because, physics describes only "how." Physics never describes "why."

 

 

I won't argue with ya here, but I do have beliefs which pertain to "why" things happen. But I won't elaborate on my beliefs here because they're irrelevant in this topic.

 

 

Thanks for the links. I know about the standard model, though. However, not many people realize that there are quite a few possible high-energy scenarios that might irradiate our planet's crust.

 

Please explain how irradiating the planets crust has any bearing on radioactive dating?

[Southtown]

Please explain how irradiating the planets crust has any bearing on radioactive dating?

Because unstable isotopes decay into daughter products according to their respective half-lives. The calculation of these half-lives determine the length of time that certain samples have been "cooling off." The question that nobody asks is how were these isotopes created. Well, nobody asks because they believe they already have the answer. But what I'm asking people to consider are other mechanisms that impart energy into rock. In other words, perhaps isotopes are not remnant energy at all, but were irradiated into the earth's crust by other means.

[REASON]

Haha. Careful what you ask for, ay?

 

:) There is wisdom in that no doubt.

 

 

No, I'm just saying that the drought analogy isn't very effective given recent events.

 

I agree. Good point.

 

 

Also, people can attribute meaning to events even if they can be explained by physics, why? Because, physics describes only "how." Physics never describes "why."

 

In Meteorology, as with many other sciences, "how" and "why" are essentially synonymous. "How does it rain?" and "Why does it rain?" will yield the same answer. Typically though, "why" is a question for philosophy.

 

 

Thanks for the links. I know about the standard model, though. However, not many people realize that there are quite a few possible high-energy scenarios that might irradiate our planet's crust.

 

I figured you probably did. I mostly included them because many other folks that read this may not be aware, and I didn't want to look like I was just making things up. :)

[Moontanman]

Because unstable isotopes decay into daughter products according to their respective half-lives. The calculation of these half-lives determine the length of time that certain samples have been "cooling off." The question that nobody asks is how were these isotopes created. Well, nobody asks because they believe they already have the answer. But what I'm asking people to consider are other mechanisms that impart energy into rock. In other words, perhaps isotopes are not remnant energy at all, but were irradiated into the earth's crust by other means.

 

The only radiation that could conceivably do that would be a huge dose of neutron radiation. Do you have any source in mind for that radiation? If so first you would have to figure out how a source of extreme neutron radiation formed close enough to the earth for the unstable neutrons to get here, then you would have to figure out how a huge number would get through the atmosphere to the surface. Then you would have to figure out how the neutron radiation could mimic the radioactive decay of the isotopes present in the earth. The radioactive decay of uranium and thorium and other metals would not release the same by products as exposure to neutron radiation would. None of these things are even remotely possible.

[goku]

i just buried a cow yesterday, i wonder if carbon dating could give an accurate age?

[Moontanman]

i just buried a cow yesterday, i wonder if carbon dating could give an accurate age?

 

Carbon dating isn't accurate enough to measure time in days. The disparity is usually several decades to several hundred years. see this link Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freeztar]

i just buried a cow yesterday, i wonder if carbon dating could give an accurate age?

 

The teeth and size of the cow would be far more useful.

[goku]

The teeth and size of the cow would be far more useful.

 

yes, yes, i see it now. i should've said, how long the cow has been dead.

[goku]

Carbon dating isn't accurate enough to measure time in days. The disparity is usually several decades to several hundred years.

 

yes, thank you! that's what i mean, it's not accurate.

[Moontanman]

yes, thank you! that's what i mean, it's not accurate.

 

I didn't say it wasn't accurate, I said it wasn't accurate enough to measure days. My watch is wildly inaccurate if you want to measure time in nano-seconds but it is quite accurate in seconds even more accurate in minutes and even more so in hours and days. What do you want? Change back from your dollar!:shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

yes, thank you! that's what i mean, it's not accurate.

 

Define accurate.

 

 

 

How I love it when people try to argue against things which they don't understand. :shrug: