Support NeoGAF

[Sanky Panky]

Sanky, nobody asked you to rephrase your initial post. We asked nicely for you to post your sources.

Here are examples of young lava showing up as millions of years old (the dates are the Ma) and excess argon yielding the wrong dates, and why they should revisit the assumptions:

Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma) 95 Ma
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land,
Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus,
Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma) 690±7 Ma
Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise (<2.5 Ma) 580±10 Ma; 700±150 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<0.6 Ma) 24.2±1.0 Ma

The list goes on and on...

Sources:

1 G.B. Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (1991, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press), p. 91.
2 G.B. Dalrymple, "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6 (1969): pp. 47-55.
3 For the original sources of these data, see the references in A.A. Snelling, "The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon 'Ages' for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon 'Dating'," R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (1998, Pittsburgh, PA, Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 503-525.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10 (1996): pp. 335-343.
7 A.W. Laughlin, J. Poths, H.A. Healey, S. Reneau and G. WoldeGabriel, "Dating of Quaternary Basalts Using the Cosmogenic 3He and 14C Methods with Implications for Excess 40Ar," Geology, 22 (1994): pp. 135-138. D.B. Patterson, M. Honda and I. McDougall, "Noble Gases in Mafic Phenocrysts and Xenoliths from New Zealand," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 58 (1994): pp. 4411-4427. J. Poths, H. Healey and A.W. Laughlin, "Ubiquitous Excess Argon in Very Young Basalts," Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs, 25 (1993): p. A-462.
8 P.E. Damon, A.W. Laughlin and J.K. Precious, "Problem of Excess Argon-40 in Volcanic Rocks," in Radioactive Dating Methods and Low-Level Counting (1967, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency), pp. 463-481.
9 C.L. Broadhurst, M.J. Drake, B.E. Hagee and T.J. Benatowicz, "Solubility and Partitioning of Ar in Anorthite, Diopside, Forsterite, Spinel, and Synthetic Basaltic Liquids," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 54 (1990): pp. 299-309. C.L. Broadhurst, M.J. Drake, B.E. Hagee and T.J. Benatowicz, "Solubility and Partitioning of Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in Minerals and Synthetic Basaltic Melts," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 56 (1992): pp. 709-723.
10 J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, 73 (1968): pp. 4601-4607.
11 P.J. Valbracht, M. Honda, T. Matsumoto, N. Mattielli, I. McDougall, R. Ragettli and D. Weis, "Helium, Neon and Argon Isotope Systematics in Kerguelen Ultramafic Xenoliths: Implications for Mantle Source Signatures," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 138 (1996): pp. 29-38.
12 M. Moreira, J. Kunz and C. Allègre, "Rare Gas Systematics in Popping Rock: Isotopic and Elemental Compositions in the Upper Mantle," Science, 279 (1998): pp. 1178-1181.
13 P. Burnard, D. Graham and G. Turner, "Vesicle-Specific Noble Gas Analyses of 'Popping Rock': Implications for Primordial Noble Gases in the Earth," Science, 276 (1997): pp. 568-571.
14 S. Zashu, M. Ozima and O. Nitoh, "K-Ar Isochron Dating of Zaire Cubic Diamonds," Nature, 323 (1986): pp. 710-712.
15 M. Ozima, S. Zashu, Y. Takigami and G. Turner, "Origin of the Anomalous 40Ar-36Ar Age of Zaire Cubic Diamonds: Excess 40Ar in Pristine Mantle Fluids," Nature, 337 (1989): pp. 226-229.
16 S.A. Austin and A.A. Snelling, "Discordant Potassium-Argon Model and Isochron 'Ages' for Cardenas Basalt (Middle Proterozoic) and Associated Diabase of Eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona," in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (1998, Pittsburgh, PA, Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 35-51.

Anyways, the whole point of this is that most on GAF need to stop being so condescending, and use critical thinking every once in a while to question their own beliefs.

 

[Ultimadrago]

Atheists are *really* condescending.

But we are all geniuses, so we have every right!

Spoiler

Spoilers: Not all atheists geniuses, but many pretend to be once given a keyboard and internet.

 

[CornBurrito]

What site did you get those from?

But we are all geniuses, so we have every right!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say a great deal of today's theists act condescending towards Scientology.

 

[Orayn]

Here are examples of young lava showing up as millions of years old (the dates are the Ma) and excess argon yielding the wrong dates, and why they should revisit the assumptions:

Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma) 95 Ma
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land,
Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus,
Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma) 690±7 Ma
Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise (<2.5 Ma) 580±10 Ma; 700±150 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<0.6 Ma) 24.2±1.0 Ma

The list goes on and on...

Sources:



Anyways, the whole point of this is that most on GAF need to stop being so condescending, and use critical thinking every once in a while to question their own beliefs.

Since you hate assumptions so much, you should really stop assuming that potassium-argon dating is the only way of knowing that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. It's not.

You are chipping away at the lowest bricks on a pyramid, not taking out the bottom pieces of a Jenga tower.

 

[Gustav]

Anyways, the whole point of this is that most on GAF need to stop being so condescending, and use critical thinking every once in a while to question their own beliefs.

What I wonder is what you're trying to proof. That the world isn't as old as we think it is? Or that we simply don't know how old it actually is? Or that we can't know for sure how old it is. Or are you arguing that it is indeed 6000 years old?

 

[scar tissue]

But we are all geniuses, so we have every right!

Most of us are rational and have no invisible friends whatsoever, which is more than I can say for the devoutly religious.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm not sure how Sanky Panky's post addresses the article, since they say that the error is within the standard deviation and that multiple dating methods are employed to check on the age of a rock. If the rock was formed in 1986 but dated to be 350,000 years old, then it's an insignificant error when compared with the total lifespan of the Earth. In addition, if the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, then carbon dating should work on everything. Lastly, scientists do not have to make an assumption about radiometric dating, because there are numerous lines of evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

EDIT: Sanky Panky lectures us on critical thinking but then copies and pastes his list from the Institute of Creation Research.

 

[CornBurrito]

Since you hate assumptions so much, you should really stop assuming that potassium-argon dating is the only way of knowing that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. It's not.

You are chipping away at the lowest bricks on a pyramid, not taking out the bottom pieces of a Jenga tower.

I wonder how Sanky intends to answer the starlight problem.

 

[ACH1LL3US]

To the OP, there is a major difference between Faith and Scientific proof. Faith does not require proof, science does, they couldn't be further from each other.

You won't be able to change her way of thinking anymore then she could change yours.

Leave her.... this won't end good. Sorry.

 

[Mims]

On behalf of normal christians, we can believe in both god and evolution. I don't think the earth is 6,000 years old but you know the crazy ones are always going to represent the majority as always. Even a few popes have acknowledge this.

 

[Alucrid]

Only if ReliGAF makes a trip to a non-creationist museum of natural history.

And have them miss out on jesus riding dinosaurs? I think not.

 

[Orayn]

I wonder how Sanky intends to answer the starlight problem.

Argumentum ad GODDIDIT.

Or he'll copy and paste some other creationist rhetoric.

 

[CornBurrito]

Argumentum ad GODDIDIT.

Or he'll copy and paste some other creationist rhetoric.

I do like how he copied and pasted information without actually posting the source.

For all I know he could have grabbed his shit from AIG/Conservapedia.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

What i don't get. Even if someone believes in such nonsense why don't they simply assume that a year for god could be billions of years for mankind. God doesn't live on Earth, he's all over the universe. His reference frame is the universe not the tiny Earth spinning around the sun. Suddenly you could keep believing in this without being labelled a complete wacko.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

But we are all geniuses, so we have every right!

That's actually far more likely to be a selection bias.

Education favors the academic mind, academic achievement counts as genius (Nobel Price), academics tend to be highly intelligent and athiest; So, some people appear to conclude, atheism must be smart.

It is far more likely that the distribution of IQ and academic capacities is normally distributed regardless of religious beliefs. Or in more common terms: that there is no relationship between intelligence and religious beliefs.

However, intelligence might influence how those beliefs develop in a specific manner over time, creating the selection we observe among academics. Being atheist isn't smart, smart people just tend to become atheist within specific fields of interest.

 

[archnemesis]

I do like how he copied and pasted information without actually posting the source.

For all I know he could have grabbed his shit from AIG/Conservapedia.

Here is his source if you want to read other articles of similar quality.

 

[scar tissue]

Argumentum ad GODDIDIT.

:lol
I like you.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I do like how he copied and pasted information without actually posting the source.

For all I know he could have grabbed his shit from AIG/Conservapedia.

They're from the Institute for Creation Research. I'm sure that Sanky Panky has gone through each reference and critically questioned all of them instead of doing a quick copy and paste hit job, right?

 

[leadbelly]

What i don't get. Even if someone believes in such nonsense why don't they simply assume that a year for god could be billions of years for mankind. God doesn't live on Earth, he's all over the universe. His reference frame is the universe not the tiny Earth spinning around the sun. Suddenly you could keep believing in this without being labelled a complete wacko.

Yeah. Like a day of Brahma. lol

How long is the day of Brahma ? (4.32 billion years)

I did actually mention that earlier on in this thread.

Certain Jewish sects believe a day means a cycle.

 

[JGS]

GAF is not representative of the whole USA.
The idea that someone who does not believe in evolution, or even in critical thinking, is even in the run for being president is ridiculous. There is not one presidential candidate who is openly atheist. Most people would not vote for an atheist president.
How many openly atheist senators are there? One, I believe someone stated earlier in this thread.

So yeah, it really is that bad.

No it's not. Gaf not being representative of the planet is a good thing. Many on here are the most rigid, conservative liberals ever and readily adopt a "Either you're for us or against us" mantra that is pathetic. There's no reason for a president to be atheist and this is more indicative of the cowardice of atheists who are scared to run for anything and then whine about it. than it is about religious people taking over. I don't think most atheists even want to run for political office. Do you?

Are you wanting them to just be the only option? Well, an atheists has to be bold enough (& stupid enough) to raise the issue.

The reality is that most people are smart enough to realize that there are more important things to think about than how old the Earth is.

I'm glad that this thread went the way it did, but you have to remember that GAF does not represent societal thought. Just as people don't speak up when someone is homophobic in casual conversation, most people (in America) wouldn't bat an eyelash if someone told them they believed the world was 6000 years old. So no, the thought process is not nearly enough ostracized.

Sure it is. What isn't ostracized is the notion that a persn is free to say what they want. The norm for as long as I've been born is secualar reasoning on the sciences. Unless you are saying that ones should be forced to adopt it, there is no danger of losing that as the standard. 100% zero chance.

I am religious and I have never gone to a church that practices YEC. I'm not personally close to anyone who staunchly adheres to it. Even if I were it would have zero impact on the world at large and likely would have little impact on me personally. I would be smart enough to know I wouldn't be compatible with them as a love interest though.

Further, I'm not so narrow minded as to think that YEC is somehow representative of that individual as whole.

This is exactly the attitude that is holding our civilization back.

See, you are content in a world where adults can indulge in childlike fantasies and think matters like the very existance of our planet is up for debate. It isn't for educated people, because thanks to science, we can get a pretty good estimate. For the ignorant people, they can sepculate whether God makes the tide go up or if Zeus makes lightning until they are blue in the face. The problem is that those idiots will have children, spread their disinformation and their myopic "anything is possible" attitude.

You say that as if there's something wrong with it. I think there is something wrong with you if you feel that the world must bend to your view even when it doesn't concern.

The harm also comes when these people want to legitimize their ridiculous beliefs by making them part of the curriculum. It has already happenned in many states, and it is a threat that looms over many others.

I am sorry, but I truly find it offensive when someone thinks the age of the earth or evolution is up for debate. It isn't. And I am never afraid to call these people out.

This is an atheist myth. There has been extremely little evidence to show that anyone is looking to replace evolution with YEC. At worst, people have the audacity to want to factor in creation as an option...& they lose.

I understand there is a need to spin it as something dangerous it helps validate your points (EDIT: OK, to be fair, I know that some actually honestly believe it too). However, there is no danger from the fanaticals who want it or the ones like me who are indifferent to their view on the matter.

There's a reason why the debate keeps coming back to this and it has nothing to do with inherent danger. It comes to this being all you've got to argue about outside of God actually existing or religion being the pure spawn of non-Satan.

 

[scar tissue]

JGS: Look up the links that were posted in terms of religious people trusting atheists as much as rapists, and being more likely to vote even for a muslim president than for an atheist.
I'm sure there are 'atheists in the closet' in politics, and that's just sad.
Being more rational = less likely to be voted for

Edit: Ooooh, you're religious. Well, that explains everything. Even if you aren't a creationist, you are far more likely to see a viewpoint that's close to yours as "not that bad" than an outsider. No further discussion with you, thanks.

 

[Orayn]

What i don't get. Even if someone believes in such nonsense why don't they simply assume that a year for god could be billions of years for mankind. God doesn't live on Earth, he's all over the universe. His reference frame is the universe not the tiny Earth spinning around the sun. Suddenly you could keep believing in this without being labelled a complete wacko.

Believing in theistic evolution and putting God at the helm of naturalistic processes is so easy to do that it's not even funny. Sure, some nonbelievers will still get grumpy about it, but anyone who isn't outright denying science is an ally in my book. We can all argue about the finer points of theology over some delicious beverages when there aren't any fundamentalist wackos to contend with.

I know I've posted this quote many times, but I only do it as often as necessary.

In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."

 

[scar tissue]

Believing in theistic evolution and putting God at the helm of naturalistic processes is so easy to do that it's not even funny. Sure, some nonbelievers will still get grumpy about it, but anyone who isn't outright denying science is an ally in my book. We can all argue about the finer points of theology over some delicious beverages when there aren't any fundamentalist wackos to contend with.

I know I've posted this quote many times, but I only do it as often as necessary.

It comes down to the fact that no organized religion wants to admit that they were wrong because that makes them fallible and open to criticism.

 

[BigDes]

It's cool that JGS has decided I'm a coward.

I mean I've never even interacted with him before but he already knows about how spineless I am. That's awesome.

 

[JGS]

JGS: Look up the links that were posted in terms of religious people trusting atheists as much as rapists, and being more likely to vote even for a muslim president than for an atheist.
I'm sure there are 'atheists in the closet' in politics, and that's just sad.
Being more rational = less likely to be voted for

And skulking around in the closet is helping their cause? What civil rights movements have you been watching that suggest keeping something in secret is the best way to change things? It's pathetic.

In every instance baby steps begat big steps. However, no one deserves to be elected if they talk some garbage about restrict religious belief that doesn't harm them.

 

[zoukka]

It comes down to the fact that no organized religion wants to admit that they were wrong because that makes them fallible and open to criticism.

Well this is true for all governments and states also. They only admit fucking up if it somehow benefits them in the long run.

 

[scar tissue]

And skulking around in the closet is helping their cause? What civil rights movements have you been watching that suggest keeping something in secret is the best way to change things? It's pathetic.

Aw jeez.
Maybe they just want to be elected, not change the world. Not every atheist is militant, some just don't care.
And if they want the power, they're better off claiming to be religious.
/bailing out of this thread and never coming back

 

[marrec]

Believing in theistic evolution and putting God at the helm of naturalistic processes is so easy to do that it's not even funny. Sure, some nonbelievers will still get grumpy about it, but anyone who isn't outright denying science is an ally in my book. We can all argue about the finer points of theology over some delicious beverages when there aren't any fundamentalist wackos to contend with.

I know I've posted this quote many times, but I only do it as often as necessary.

I fucking love Sagan.

Protip: Read it in his voice to get chills.

That's one reason I don't really recommend Dawkins to people is because he is just as venomous towards people who put God at the beginning of the big-bang as he is against Young Earth Creationists. I don't have an issue with you believing that God kicked off the Big Bang. As scientific reasoning discovers more and more about the 'time' before the Big Bang, just move God further and further back. A sort of reverse "God of the Gaps" argument. As long as you espouse and understand the scientific reasoning that got us to there in the first place.

And to people saying that Atheists are condescending, it's terribly easy to come off as condescending when you are someone who thinks critically and the person being condescended has placed their belief system inside a willfully ignorant bunker of lies.

 

[Sanky Panky]

I do like how he copied and pasted information without actually posting the source.

For all I know he could have grabbed his shit from AIG/Conservapedia.

Alas, you wanted research papers, so I gave you the sources. I knew some here are so obtuse that they would dismiss entire research findings because they were summarized in a website with the word "creation" in it. I was not wrong. You guys are highly predictable.

I'm not sure how Sanky Panky's post addresses the article, since they say that the error is within the standard deviation and that multiple dating methods are employed to check on the age of a rock. If the rock was formed in 1986 but dated to be 350,000 years old, then it's an insignificant error when compared with the total lifespan of the Earth. In addition, if the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, then carbon dating should work on everything. Lastly, scientists do not have to make an assumption about radiometric dating, because there are numerous lines of evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

There is no evidence that suggest that these findings are insignificant errors, and the ones that agree with old age are not insignificant errors. Other radiometric tests are done with the same initial assumptions, so the ones that do not corroborate are thrown out as "insignificant errors". It is nothing against the scientific method, but you have to question assumptions made by people chasing research funding and sensationalist claims.

 

[marrec]

Alas, you wanted research papers, so I gave you the sources. I knew some here are so obtuse that they would dismiss entire research findings because they were summarized in a website with the word "creation" in it. I was not wrong. You guys are highly predictable.

Sanky, part of the Scientific process is Peer Review and the way we separate out bullshit from science is first by checking the sources to see if papers were published in Peer Reviewed journals.

If a study cannot get published in a Peer Reviewed journal than it means nothing to me.

 

[Mengy]

So in her mind fossils and dinosaurs were conjured up by the devil to confuse us right?

No, her church teaches that the fossils are from dinosaurs that lived here, but that science has them dated all wrong. They only died off a few thousand years ago to them. Pretty much science is wrong and the Bible is always right.

Naw, she only watched the movie and she didn't even like it.

She liked it, but tuned out a bit through it because of it's "false message" and shit. Kurt Russell saved if for her though, lol.

We do watch Farscape and BSG together all the time, so it's not all bad!!!

 

[BigDes]

Alas, you wanted research papers, so I gave you the sources. I knew some here are so obtuse that they would dismiss entire research findings because they were summarized in a website with the word "creation" in it. I was not wrong. You guys are highly predictable.



There is no evidence that suggest that these findings are insignificant errors, and the ones that agree with old age are not insignificant errors. Other radiometric tests are done with the same initial assumptions, so the ones that do not corroborate are thrown out as "insignificant errors". It is nothing against the scientific method, but you have to question assumptions made by people chasing research funding and sensationalist claims.

So was the data you provided found by people not chasing research funding and sensationalist claims?

Why is this?

 

[Emwitus]

I believe God can create the earth in 6 days, but did he? This is where faith comes in. I must add that my salvation or anyone elses does not depend on this subject.

 

[JGS]

I believe God can create the earth in 6 days, but did he? This is where faith comes in. I must add that my salvation or anyone elses does not depend on this subject.

Agreed

 

[Klyka]

No, her church teaches that the fossils are from dinosaurs that lived here, but that science has them dated all wrong. They only died off a few thousand years ago to them. Pretty much science is wrong and the Bible is always right.




She liked it, but tuned out a bit through it because of it's "false message" and shit. Kurt Russell saved if for her though, lol.

We do watch Farscape and BSG together all the time, so it's not all bad!!!

I don't get the "false message" thing. Stargate takes place in an alternate universe and not in our own world. In their world, there are Stargates, Aliens and the pyramids could well be totally different/older than the ones in our world.
It's like a fucking vampire movie, sure it's set in a world that looks like ours, but it's not cause there are god damn vampires in it. She's not gonna cry "this is a false message, I only accept mature content for mature audiences such as myself" then?

 

[Sanky Panky]

Sanky, part of the Scientific process is Peer Review and the way we separate out bullshit from science is first by checking the sources to see if papers were published in Peer Reviewed journals.

If a study cannot get published in a Peer Reviewed journal than it means nothing to me.

I agree. The website summarized the findings of peer reviewed studies, in order to make a point. No need to dismiss the information of the studies because it is posted by ICR.

 

[Orayn]

Sanky, you know that the Dalrymple source supports the Earth being 4+ billion years old and specifically address the ambiguities you're presenting, right? No? Yeah, figured.

Isn't that the official stance these days of the Catholic church and of most Protestant churches in Europe, at the very least the EKD (a German federation of Protestant Churches)? Admittedly though some of the official papers of the Catholic church on evolution contain...shall we say ambiguous/vague parts.

There are still a few niggling ambiguities in their official stance, but yeah, the Catholic Church is pretty much on board with evolution.

 

[Klyka]

I think most of those weird religions in the US are basically cults and sects, right?

 

[Orayn]

I think most of those weird religions in the US are basically cults and sects, right?

Varies. You get the occasional mini-cult, but it's amazing just how out-there "mainstream" evangelical protestant churches can be. Missouri Synod Lutherans, Penecostals, certain Baptists, some of the Church of Christ etc.

 

[marrec]

I agree. The website summarized the findings of peer reviewed studies, in order to make a point. No need to dismiss the information of the studies because it is posted by ICR.

I'm looking at the exact page you posted them from and I cannot find a single link to a Peer Reviewed study. There are two links in the references, and both of them go to different ICR pages.

Even if those numbers come from reviewed papers, part of the scientific process is revising what we know about something if sufficient evidence is given to prove revision necessary. So a few cherry picked examples of some paper being mistaken about this number or that does not represent the vast majority of correct scientific studies.

 

[MaverickHunterX]

You're mocking the wrong religion. Catholics generally aren't anti-science.

Sorry guy, it wasn't a mock. This was a real question asked to a real priest around age 7. Never meant to be a smart ass, but sometimes these people take shit too far (in that case, asking me to ignored actual physical proof or something exist for religions sake)

 

[Skellig Gra]

You blindly accept whatever people tell you, how is that any different than your girlfriend? You cite a specific hypothetical example which shows you are no better than her.

 

[Mgoblue201]

There is no evidence that suggest that these findings are insignificant errors, and the ones that agree with old age are not insignificant errors. Other radiometric tests are done with the same initial assumptions, so the ones that do not corroborate are thrown out as "insignificant errors". It is nothing against the scientific method, but you have to question assumptions made by people chasing research funding and sensationalist claims.

Some of your examples are within the standard deviation. Out of the remaining examples, most are decades old and utilized less sophisticated techniques. The accuracy of the methods have grown over time. For example, as recently as 1997 argon-argon dating was capable of dating the destruction of Pompeii within seven years. That's assuming we can even trust the list to begin with, because it's very difficult to confirm any of it. Furthermore, different dating methods rely upon different "assumptions" and should give different dates if you are correct. But if they largely corroborate each other within a certain range, then it is more than your argument can explain.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Even if those numbers come from reviewed papers, part of the scientific process is revising what we know about something if sufficient evidence is given to prove revision necessary. So a few cherry picked examples of some paper being mistaken about this number or that does not represent the vast majority of correct scientific studies.

Apparently part of the scientific process is to dismiss data that doesn't conform to your pre-conceived ideas and assumptions. I guess it is fun to think about, but sorry if I don't view this science in the same light as others.

Some of your examples are within the standard deviation. Out of the remaining examples, most are decades old and utilized less sophisticated techniques. The accuracy of the methods have grown over time. For example, as recently as 1997 argon-argon dating was capable of dating the destruction of Pompeii within seven years. That's assuming we can even trust the list to begin with, because it's very difficult to confirm any of it. Furthermore, different dating methods rely upon different "assumptions" and should give different dates if you are correct. But if they largely corroborate each other within a certain range, then it is more than your argument can explain.

Just like the case where different methods gave wildly different age ranges for the same formations in the Grand Canyon, but of course, they will cherry pick those that match and claim corroborating evidence. My only beef is that you guys accept these blindly and never question "science".

 

[marrec]

You blindly accept whatever people tell you, how is that any different than your girlfriend? You cite a specific hypothetical example which shows you are no better than her.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Gustav]

Who are you talking to?

OP, otherwise he wouldn't say "your girlfriend".

 

[marrec]

Apparently part of the scientific process is to dismiss data that doesn't conform to your pre-conceived ideas and assumptions. I guess it is fun to think about, but sorry if I don't view this science in the same light as others.

Data is not dismissed but amassed are part of what makes up the evidence for or against a specific thing. Dating from 1968 that had some deviation in what we've come to understand as the standard numbers do not disprove the standard numbers because there is a mountain of evidence saying that these numbers are correct.

You're cherry picking and showing as much willful ignorance as the OPs wife, which is not surprising considering your religious position.

OP, otherwise he wouldn't say "your girlfriend".

Just checking.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Just like the case where different methods gave wildly different age ranges for the same formations in the Grand Canyon, but of course, they will cherry pick those that match and claim corroborating evidence. My only beef is that you guys accept these blindly and never question "science".

What the hell are you talking about? Your random examples, without any rigorous explanation of the science behind them, is the very definition of cherry-picking.

 

[Skellig Gra]

OP, otherwise he wouldn't say "your girlfriend".

.

 

[Mengy]

Wow, this thread exploded overnight, took a while to read it all.

Hmm. Now this is interesting.

I was raised in the SDA church and was part of it for the first 17 or so years of my life (so I've been out of it for ~6 years). I only went to SDA schools until college, and virtually all my friends, family friends, etc. were SDA. My parents and a lot of my extended family still are Adventists. I still have a number of good Adventist friends, too. It's kind of weird sometimes with the differences we now have. However, among my generation, lots of Adventists break the rules that were set out. Sex before marriage, drinking, smoking, drug use, "bad" musc, etc. The church is behind in many ways still compared to a number of other denominations. Plus there are still some fucking bizarre beliefs at their core.

Does she eat meat? Adventism advocates vegetarianism or veganism, as it was founded at a time of unsafe meat packing practices that lead to disease from meat consumption.

Does she drink? Although the Bible does not explicitly ban alcohol, church doctrine dictates you must not.

Is the young earth issue the only one that has come up as a potential conflict? How does she feel about abortion, birth control, etc.? What about her thoughts on your lifestyle choices (whatever they may be)?

If the earth age can be a topic of controversy, has she ever talked about the National Sunday Law? It's probably one of the more hilarious teachings by the church. They seem to be obsessed with doomsday scenarios that bring on the 2nd Coming, which is probably why David Koresh broke off from the church and stockpiled weapons etc. fearing that they were going to be persecuted. The Sunday Law is just that. See, starting at a fairly young age we were taught that we were "special" or the ones with the "right" teachings. A big one being the Saturday as Sabbath vs Sunday (which is biblical, to be fair). Anyway, the scare is that some day there will be a law forcing people to go to church on Sunday, and all Adventists will be persecuted for their beliefs. This is supposed to happen before Jesus comes.

I feel like this mindset might be more of a conflict than the young earth thing. I thought that since the church is supposedly "advancing" that they might have dumped that silly idea, but I recently flipped open the cover of the latest Visitor (Adventist magazine publication) and the main letter is about preparing for apocalyptic scenarios, like the motherfucking Sunday Law. They are still on that shit. Would be interesting to see if she has a fixation there.

I suppose it's not a big deal if she has a crazy set of beliefs if she allows you to be you, but at the same time I've found a number of Adventists in my life to be hard to discuss many general things with. I think some people who are taught to think crazily by the church early on allow that way of thinking to spill over into their non-church life.

Hah, I can tell by your questions that you know what you are talking about:

- yes, she eats meat, but not pig (except for bacon in certain things)

- she drinks,but only at home with me for the most part. Not a drinker in any sense.

- the young Earth is not the only issue we don't see eye to eye on...

- I tease her all the time about how her church has God's day on the wrong day of the week, lol. We've discussed the National Sunday Law, which of course brings up her belief that yes, we are in fact in the "end of days" now, the apocalypse has started, and the world is ending even as we speak. The signs are all around us according to her church. She believes all of this, but she doesn't let it rule her life.

To be honest, even though she sticks by her faith, she doesn't really let it show outwardly or change how she lives her life much. Some people might consider her a hypocrite for that, but I think she just knows how limiting her church's lifestyle really is and has decided to live her life her own way. But many facets of her church are still strong in her. She has picked and chosen what to hold onto and what to let go of. In any case I don't look down on her for that, I do respect her for so many reasons so I can respect her beliefs too, even if I don't agree with them. People are individuals, it's what makes us all interesting IMHO.