There are a few scientists, like me who agree that radiometric dating is not real science.  Using ancient rocks (mostly uranium) and the decay of those is really an unknown, because the original bones are not there.  There is no carbon no c-14 to date which is a bit more accurate.
But using radio metric dating on the minerals around an old fossil is a very poor use of assumptions.  There is no way that the minerals around a fossil are the same age as the fossil.  This is not real science.   Real science does not rely on assumptions of a hypothesis on atomic theory.

Basically the dating of fossils that have no remaining organic materials at all is a worthless pursuit.  It is an utter logical fallacy to think that the "dirt" around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones.
Keep in mind that I came to my own conclusions long before I read any of these other people's works.
It is just a total logical fallacy that 1/ the methods are 100% accurate and 2/ dating the minerals around a petrified (replacement or recrystallization fossil) fossil is even logical at all.  What does the dirt have in common with the original bone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo

http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld024.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ

I haven't had the time to check out your links, but from my understanding, radiometric dating is not just dating carbon-14 (radiocarbon dating), but encompasses a gamut of methods including Uranium-lead dating, Samarium-neodymium dating, Potassium-argon dating methods amongst many others. I also understand that the further back in time you wish to date, the harder it is due to the length of time isotopes are available (ie they degrade), but the by-products of the decay are then used.
Administrator, is this the correct understanding of the methodology you dispute?
Without having checked your links, can you please articulate why you think this method is faulty, and on what basis you dispute the methods used?
Thanks.

Radiometric dating is based on the assumptions of:  1/ that all these things were created on earth. 2/ that the age of a fossil is the same age as the "dirt" around it. (That is just ridiculous!)
3/ That time is a constant and decay is constant. There is no way to know this.
4/ That the conditions that affect these radioactive materials is constant. High heat, salt water, and separation of the daughter materials is very plausible.
6/ There is absolutely (that mean not possible under any circumstance) to verify that this method is of any value.  Can't produce a single experiment to prove this method is viable.  It has never passed a single scientific methodology to verify it at all, because it can't be done.  It is based on assumptions.  Assume =  Makes and ASS our of U and ME.
In other words without a time machine to verify this data, it is worthless.

Only people who are easily duped in to false beliefs, easily brainwashed, could believe in radiometric dating.   It is another religious belief that has no testing and NO way to test.

I see. Then I shall study the subject in some detail. Thanks :)

prolescum wrote on Nov 8^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

I see. Then I shall study the subject in some detail. Thanks :)

As an example.  If you were to fall into a watering hole today and die, you would be petrified in some amount of time and all your organic matter would be destroyed and replaced with the minerals that surround your bones.  This is "replacement" fossilization. The method used on most all of the "hominids" and any fossil that has no carbon.

Because the minerals in the watering hole were 5 million years old, it would be determined at the time if excavation of your fossil that you were over 5 million years old, because the ground you fell in was that old.
This is the most ridiculous method of dating anything I have ever come across. How can people be that stupid to be conned into something that is based on the assumption that the earth you fell in is the same age as you!
Damn! That is total ignorance!

This method of dating actually destroys most of the fossil record and in particular "hominids".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wFYtYJByNg

Well it's time to highlight some more bs I think.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

There are a few scientists, like me who agree that radiometric dating is not real science.

Interesting. How do you define yourself as a scientist? I'd suggest that the minimum required to do so would be to have an article published in a scientific journal.  Peer review is one of the foundations of science so it's seems to be a pretty basic criteria.

I would probably stretch it slightly further though and suggest that to be given credibility the work must be cited by at least one other study also published in the peer reviewed literature.

We can discuss the merits of various scientific publications based on impact factor should you wish.



GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

Using ancient rocks (mostly uranium) and the decay of those is really an unknown, because the original bones are not there.

Mostly uranium? What about pottasium/argon and rubidium/strontium? How about thorium/lead?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

There is no carbon no c-14 to date which is a bit more accurate.

More accurate? Howso? C14 has a half life, if memory serves, of around 6000 years. I could go and look up the figure. Infact, I will. Turns out to be 5730 years.

This means that C14 dating is unlikely to be useful beyond 60 thousand years simply because the quantity of C14 in the sample will have reduced to levels that are too low.

Compare this to the other dating methods I mentioned, with half lives measured up to billions of years. A 1% error over a billion years is still going to leave an error of 10 Million years, a 2% error over 100K years is going to give a margin for error of 2000 yeras?

So which is more accurate? In absolute terms it's clearly C14. In relative terms, C14 dating would be twice as inaccurate. Now I picked those figures out of thin air to make a point. The point being that you never mentioned relative or absolute accuracy and so your statement is worthless. Dates given by dating methods are given a margin for error based on confidence levels.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

But using radio metric dating on the minerals around an old fossil is a very poor use of assumptions.  There is no way that the minerals around a fossil are the same age as the fossil.

So you have no understanding of sedimentary vs igneous or metamorphic rock?  Dating sedimentary rock is of course worthless for determining the age of the deposition, since all you do is find the age of the particular matter.

However, when rock is molten its "radiometric clock" is reset, meaning that it is entirely possible to date those rocks. So, find a layer of sedimentary rock containing a fossil, date the igneous rock above and below it, and you set both an upper and lower bound for the age of the depostion sandwiched in between. Does it get you an absolute date of deposition? Of course not, but then nobody claimed it did. It does set upper and lower bounds though, which is all that is really needed.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

This is not real science.   Real science does no rely on assumptions of a hypothesis on atomic theory.

Hypothesis on atomic theory? You mean, err, atomic theory? Why mention hypothesis at all? On what grounds to you describe it as not real science?


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

Basically the dating of fossils that have no remaining organic materials at all is a worthless pursuit.  It is an utter logical fallacy to think that the "dirt" around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones.

Which is why the "dirt" around the fossils is not dated to determine the age of the fossil. Lucky that, ain't it.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

Keep in mind that I came to my own conclusions long before I read any of these other people's works.

I get the distinct impression that you came to your own conclusions long before you were educated about any aspect of science and have since put up the shutters.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:29am:

It is just a total logical fallacy that 1/ the methods are 100% accurate and 2/ dating the minerals around a petrified (replacement or recrystallization fossil) fossil is even logical at all.  What does the dirt have in common with the original bone?

A fallacy that dating methods are 100% accurate? I agree. Good that this is only your straw man and not what the science actually says, isn't it.

I'm noticing a pattern, you love to argue against straw men. Why don't you dissect one of those papers. Indeed I have one here for you, no need to go and find one.

"Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals"

Article published by "Richard G. Fairbanksa, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Richard A. Mortlocka, Tzu-Chien Chiua, b, Li Caoa, b, Alexey Kaplana, Thomas P. Guildersonc, d, Todd W. Fairbankse, Arthur L. Bloomf, Pieter M. Grootesg and Marie-Josée Nadeaug"

This particular paper can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4GFV5WR-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1104303442&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0efac926fae0c5e855e0d0997f253dab

Now you need a subscription to be able to read this, but I'm sure that a man such as yourself, a real scientist, will have access to scientific journals. Indeed if you have read 200,000 papers it is a reasonable conclusion that you have access to essentially all science journals currently available.

of course if you don't I can find you another article that does not require a subscription. This one seems perfect though, since it covers calibration curves, multiple independent means of calibrating radiometric dating.

wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

Well it's time to highlight some more bs I think. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: There are a few scientists, like me who agree that radiometric dating is not real science. Interesting. How do you define yourself as a scientist? I'd suggest that the minimum required to do so would be to have an article published in a scientific journal.  Peer review is one of the foundations of science so it's seems to be a pretty basic criteria. I would probably stretch it slightly further though and suggest that to be given credibility the work must be cited by at least one other study also published in the peer reviewed literature. We can discuss the merits of various scientific publications based on impact factor should you wish. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:   Using ancient rocks (mostly uranium) and the decay of those is really an unknown, because the original bones are not there. Mostly uranium? What about pottasium/argon and rubidium/strontium? How about thorium/lead? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:   There is no carbon no c-14 to date which is a bit more accurate. More accurate? Howso? C14 has a half life, if memory serves, of around 6000 years. I could go and look up the figure. Infact, I will. Turns out to be 5730 years. This means that C14 dating is unlikely to be useful beyond 60 thousand years simply because the quantity of C14 in the sample will have reduced to levels that are too low. Compare this to the other dating methods I mentioned, with half lives measured up to billions of years. A 1% error over a billion years is still going to leave an error of 10 Million years, a 2% error over 100K years is going to give a margin for error of 2000 yeras? So which is more accurate? In absolute terms it's clearly C14. In relative terms, C14 dating would be twice as inaccurate. Now I picked those figures out of thin air to make a point. The point being that you never mentioned relative or absolute accuracy and so your statement is worthless. Dates given by dating methods are given a margin for error based on confidence levels. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: But using radio metric dating on the minerals around an old fossil is a very poor use of assumptions.  There is no way that the minerals around a fossil are the same age as the fossil. So you have no understanding of sedimentary vs igneous or metamorphic rock?  Dating sedimentary rock is of course worthless for determining the age of the deposition, since all you do is find the age of the particular matter. However, when rock is molten its "radiometric clock" is reset, meaning that it is entirely possible to date those rocks. So, find a layer of sedimentary rock containing a fossil, date the igneous rock above and below it, and you set both an upper and lower bound for the age of the depostion sandwiched in between. Does it get you an absolute date of deposition? Of course not, but then nobody claimed it did. It does set upper and lower bounds though, which is all that is really needed. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:   This is not real science.   Real science does no rely on assumptions of a hypothesis on atomic theory. Hypothesis on atomic theory? You mean, err, atomic theory? Why mention hypothesis at all? On what grounds to you describe it as not real science? GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: Basically the dating of fossils that have no remaining organic materials at all is a worthless pursuit.  It is an utter logical fallacy to think that the "dirt" around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones. Which is why the "dirt" around the fossils is not dated to determine the age of the fossil. Lucky that, ain't it. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: Keep in mind that I came to my own conclusions long before I read any of these other people's works. I get the distinct impression that you came to your own conclusions long before you were educated about any aspect of science and have since put up the shutters. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: It is just a total logical fallacy that 1/ the methods are 100% accurate and 2/ dating the minerals around a petrified (replacement or recrystallization fossil) fossil is even logical at all.  What does the dirt have in common with the original bone? A fallacy that dating methods are 100% accurate? I agree. Good that this is only your straw man and not what the science actually says, isn't it. I'm noticing a pattern, you love to argue against straw men. Why don't you dissect one of those papers. Indeed I have one here for you, no need to go and find one. "Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals" Article published by "Richard G. Fairbanksa, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Richard A. Mortlocka, Tzu-Chien Chiua, b, Li Caoa, b, Alexey Kaplana, Thomas P. Guildersonc, d, Todd W. Fairbankse, Arthur L. Bloomf, Pieter M. Grootesg and Marie-Josée Nadeaug" This particular paper can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4GFV5WR-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1104303442&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0efac926fae0c5e855e0d0997f253dab Now you need a subscription to be able to read this, but I'm sure that a man such as yourself, a real scientist, will have access to scientific journals. Indeed if you have read 200,000 papers it is a reasonable conclusion that you have access to essentially all science journals currently available. of course if you don't I can find you another article that does not require a subscription. This one seems perfect though, since it covers calibration curves, multiple independent means of calibrating radiometric dating.

Apparenty you did not read anything I wrote. You repeat the crap that has been taught to you, wich is full of logical fallacies.

Read it again, and wake the F up.

How can people be so stupid as to accept assumptions as if they were real?
Just because they use the same assumptions on argon potassium and uranium does not make the assumptions have any validity in the first place.
This is a very good example of "sideways logic".  What you said has nothing to do with the question.
There is NO WAY to validate this unless you have a time machine.  PERIOD.
Dating a fossil by the assumed age of the "dirt" it fell in, is ridiculous and makes a mockery of science and objective reasoning. 

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

I find it interesting that this fellow says a lot of what I teach and we are totally independent of each other.

Look at those charts of the use of the dating methods and how inaccurate they are.   Off by millions and up to hundreds of millions of years.

methods in general are inaccurate

As an example.  If you were to fall into a watering hole today and die, you would be petrified in some amount of time and all your organic matter would be destroyed and replaced with the minerals that surround your bones.  This is "replacement" fossilization. The method used on most all of the "hominids" and any fossil that has no carbon.

Because the minerals in the watering hole were 5 million years old, it would be determined at the time if excavation of your fossil that you were over 5 million years old, because the ground you fell in was that old.
This is the most ridiculous method of dating anything I have ever come across. How can people be that stupid to be conned into something that is based on the assumption that the earth you fell in is the same age as you!
Damn! That is total ignorance!

This method of dating actually destroys most of the fossil record and in particular "hominids".

How many times do you have to be told that you don't date the materials in teh fossil, you date the metamorphic rock around it to get upper and lower bounds?

Seriously, you've been told this at least twice by me. To keep repeating the same crap when you have been told it is wrong, time and time and time again, just what do you hope to achieve.

You don't date the fossil, you date the volcanic rocks.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 5:16am:

How many times do you have to be told that you don't date the materials in teh fossil, you date the metamorphic rock around it to get upper and lower bounds? Seriously, you've been told this at least twice by me. To keep repeating the same crap when you have been told it is wrong, time and time and time again, just what do you hope to achieve. You don't date the fossil, you date the volcanic rocks.

How many time are you going to not read my posts. or listen to my videos?

I've read them, again and again, in the hope of extracting some sense. I'm yet to find it.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 12:32pm:

I've read them, again and again, in the hope of extracting some sense. I'm yet to find it.

When people repeat the same exact thing that I am saying, then say it is wrong, shows that you can't read.  You are projecting what you think I said.

You cannot measure with radiometric dating any of the following,  the "dirt" "rocks" or anything surrounding the fossil and say this is the absolute truth about the date of these bones before they were petrified.

I call it putting the bones in a box then dating the box and saying the 6 million year old box is the same age as the 3000 year old petrified bones.
Once there is no tissue, all you have is blind ass belief in assumptions. That is not science.

You are free to believe whatever will perpetuate your emotionally driven warm fuzzies that make you feel so smart.
However, in the real world of physics, assumptions are not testable. They are not science.

So, still no reference to the geological column and deposition? You do realise that deposition is well understood, that the geological column is well understood, and that we can look at the various layers of strata and determine if they have been disturbed since formation?

Apparently not, since this negates your points.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 2:53pm:

So, still no reference to the geological column and deposition? You do realise that deposition is well understood, that the geological column is well understood, and that we can look at the various layers of strata and determine if they have been disturbed since formation? Apparently not, since this negates your points.

The geographic column  and these ice columns are standardized by what?  If you have no standard to date with because the radiometric dating system is so screwed up and worthless, then what is the date of anything. 

You must have a reference point in time and space that is absolutely proven.  You do not have that. You have human emotional mental garbage, beliefs and assumptions.

That is NOT SCIENCE.   I feel sorry for you. It must be sad to realize that these idiots are brainwashed who taught you.

You put your faith in people who are not sane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRj_HxO_e80

Berlinski is right on!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 6:55pm:

Berlinski is right on!

It's quite good, that you don't listen to anyone's opinion, isn't it?

glowingape wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 7:18pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:55pm: Berlinski is right on! It's quite good, that you don't listen to anyone's opinion, isn't it?

I listen to your opinions but they are not based on any real evidence. 

Berlinski agrees with me, because he is not a f**king pawn like you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRj_HxO_e80

Thanks for bringing this thread up to the top.  At some point i'm going to go through it and pick on the main problems and make sure anyone that reads the reply will have an accurate understanding of how this works.

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 9:39am:

Thanks for bringing this thread up to the top.  At some point i'm going to go through it and pick on the main problems and make sure anyone that reads the reply will have an accurate understanding of how this works.

You do not understand what pure logic and reason is. It has been taught out of you.
You need to take back your mind from those you gave it too. All beliefs are bad. I have not found any human beliefs to be valid. Beliefs destroy the credibility in all scientists who have them. You cannot be rational, responsible and honest if your belief in things that have no absolute, irrefutable evidence. Don't you know that?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 12:46pm:

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 9:39am: Thanks for bringing this thread up to the top.  At some point i'm going to go through it and pick on the main problems and make sure anyone that reads the reply will have an accurate understanding of how this works. You do not understand what pure logic and reason is. It has been taught out of you. You need to take back your mind from those you gave it too. All beliefs are bad. I have not found any human beliefs to be valid. Beliefs destroy the credibility in all scientists who have them. You cannot be rational, responsible and honest if you belief in things that have no absolute, irrefutable evidence. Don't you know that?

You should really read our posts more... Or just read them would suffice.

glowingape wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 12:53pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 12:46pm: Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 9:39am: Thanks for bringing this thread up to the top.  At some point i'm going to go through it and pick on the main problems and make sure anyone that reads the reply will have an accurate understanding of how this works. You do not understand what pure logic and reason is. It has been taught out of you. You need to take back your mind from those you gave it too. All beliefs are bad. I have not found any human beliefs to be valid. Beliefs destroy the credibility in all scientists who have them. You cannot be rational, responsible and honest if you belief in things that have no absolute, irrefutable evidence. Don't you know that? You should really read our posts more... Or just read them would suffice.

The study of genetics has nothing in common with some fantasy of any form of transitional creatures, evolution, nor fish that became human over some immense time. There is absolutely no evidence for this taking place, because there is no evidence for this taking place.

And these Evodelusionists, never think beyond their brainwashing. The "elephant" is huge in the room and the "elephant" is this human garbage belief behind every dumb ass thought.  Evolution is fraud.  It is a religious idea, in mythological creatures, magical processes, and mystical events.

Do you actually believe that fish or mice, great primates, or WTF, eventually evolved into humans, and what evidence do you use to justify such nonsense?

Just answer the question. 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 12:46pm:

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 9:39am: Thanks for bringing this thread up to the top.  At some point i'm going to go through it and pick on the main problems and make sure anyone that reads the reply will have an accurate understanding of how this works. You do not understand what pure logic and reason is. It has been taught out of you. You need to take back your mind from those you gave it too. All beliefs are bad. I have not found any human beliefs to be valid. Beliefs destroy the credibility in all scientists who have them. You cannot be rational, responsible and honest if you belief in things that have no absolute, irrefutable evidence. Don't you know that?

I think your HEMG is getting in the way of things a little here, especially since you don't know what i do or don't believe and what my education has been like.  Esepcially since not only has there been a gap between your time in education and mine but mines taken place on a different continent.

And as for logic and reason being taught out of me that's just rubbish, if you weren't so blinkered to your strange brand of logic you might be able to appreciate that.  I have a BSc with honours in Geology, for which i needed to hone my reasoning skills and develop my objectiveness.  Because you do seem to be right about one thing, thats the fact that there is little room in science for subjectiveness or opinions, but that's the only thing you get right.  I am rational, as i'm being right now (i'm certainly not calling people stupid enmass) and as it happens my job resquires me to be a very responcible person.

My mind is my own, as is yours, however i'm not the one that needs to reclaim my mind.  I hope that you get to reclaim yours from the strange place you've managed to put it.

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 3:23pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 12:46pm: Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 9:39am: Thanks for bringing this thread up to the top.  At some point i'm going to go through it and pick on the main problems and make sure anyone that reads the reply will have an accurate understanding of how this works. You do not understand what pure logic and reason is. It has been taught out of you. You need to take back your mind from those you gave it too. All beliefs are bad. I have not found any human beliefs to be valid. Beliefs destroy the credibility in all scientists who have them. You cannot be rational, responsible and honest if you belief in things that have no absolute, irrefutable evidence. Don't you know that? I think your HEMG is getting in the way of things a little here, especially since you don't know what i do or don't believe and what my education has been like.  Esepcially since not only has there been a gap between your time in education and mine but mines taken place on a different continent. And as for logic and reason being taught out of me that's just rubbish, if you weren't so blinkered to your strange brand of logic you might be able to appreciate that.  I have a BSc with honours in Geology, for which i needed to hone my reasoning skills and develop my objectiveness.  Because you do seem to be right about one thing, thats the fact that there is little room in science for subjectiveness or opinions, but that's the only thing you get right.  I am rational, as i'm being right now (i'm certainly not calling people stupid enmass) and as it happens my job resquires me to be a very responcible person. My mind is my own, as is yours, however i'm not the one that needs to reclaim my mind.  I hope that you get to reclaim yours from the strange place you've managed to put it.

If you think that radiometric dating is perfect and real, then you are delusional and have been taught out of pure logic.

If you were to die today, and fall into a watering hole as is a common way to get fossils.  In less than 1,000 years they would dig up your replacement fossil (no organic matter at all) and tell the world that they discovered the "volcanoithicus ramedous and upright human, showing that humans have been here longer than we thought" and date you as the same age as the ground you fell into.  Most likely your fossil would be dated at over 5 million years old.  It is utterly ridiculous to date fossils that have no carbon in them by this screwed up totally illogical method.

It is an utter logical fallacy to date fossils by the radiometric dating of the ground it fell in. This is why there are so many contradictory fossils that do not fit the belief, and are never discussed in class. This is why the data is forced and has a lot of egos and beliefs in it, not backed up by any form of science.

Yet, I'll be that you think this is valid?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 3:54pm:

If you think that radiometric dating is perfect and real, then you are delusional and have been taught out of pure logic. If you were to die today, and fall into a watering hole as is a common way to get fossils.  In less than 1,000 years they would dig up your replacement fossil (no organic matter at all) and tell the world that they discovered the "volcanoithicus ramedous and upright human, showing that humans have been here longer than we thought" and date you as the same age as the ground you fell into.  Most likely your fossil would be dated at over 5 million years old.  It is utterly ridiculous to date fossils that have no carbon in them by this screwed up totally illogical method. It is an utter logical fallacy to date fossils by the radiometric dating of the ground it fell in. This is why there are so many contradictory fossils that do not fit the belief, and are never discussed in class. This is why the data is forced and has a lot of egos and beliefs in it, not backed up by any form of science. Yet, I'll be that you think this is valid?

The logical fallacy is yours, as is the epic fail.

I will deal with this more fully when i've got the time.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 1:23pm:

The study of genetics has nothing in common with some fantasy of any form of transitional creatures, evolution, nor fish that became human over some immense time.

Ohhhh... Genetics has nothing to evolution? Wow! Well, in that case let me introduce you to a awesome friend of mine, called Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: ge·net·ics
Pronunciation: \jə-ˈne-tiks\
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
Date: 1905

1 : a branch of biology that deals with the heredity and variation of organisms
2 : the genetic makeup and phenomena of an organism, type, group, or condition

— ge·net·i·cist \-ˈne-tə-sist\ noun



Quote:

There is absolutely no evidence for this taking place, because there is no evidence for this taking place.

It must really suck, that you never bothered to open a textbook for 1st or 2nd grade of school.


Quote:

Do you actually believe that fish or mice, great primates, or WTF, eventually evolved into humans, and what evidence do you use to justify such nonsense?

Mice evolved into humans? Unlikely, since they're on the completely different branch of the evolutionary ladder.

For instance, the rodentia ancestry: http://tolweb.org/Rodentia/15959 and the hominidae ancestry is here: http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299

If you want to trace the ancestry on the tree, just click the left arrow in the tree. I can't be bothered to copy it all here.


Quote:

Just answer the question.

Just did. You wouldn't mind asking the gazillion of questions, that me and other asked?

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2009 at 3:54pm: If you think that radiometric dating is perfect and real, then you are delusional and have been taught out of pure logic. If you were to die today, and fall into a watering hole as is a common way to get fossils.  In less than 1,000 years they would dig up your replacement fossil (no organic matter at all) and tell the world that they discovered the "volcanoithicus ramedous and upright human, showing that humans have been here longer than we thought" and date you as the same age as the ground you fell into.  Most likely your fossil would be dated at over 5 million years old.  It is utterly ridiculous to date fossils that have no carbon in them by this screwed up totally illogical method. It is an utter logical fallacy to date fossils by the radiometric dating of the ground it fell in. This is why there are so many contradictory fossils that do not fit the belief, and are never discussed in class. This is why the data is forced and has a lot of egos and beliefs in it, not backed up by any form of science. Yet, I'll be that you think this is valid? The logical fallacy is yours, as is the epic fail. I will deal with this more fully when i've got the time.

Some of these idiots will take samples from over 20 feet away and use those to date the fossil with.  This is an abortion of science.  It is not even science because it is only  a misuse of science and only uses improper assumptions.

It would be impossible for the ground to be the same age as the creature that died and was buried in "existing" sediment that had not even hardened yet.  Most ALL of the fossils are miss dated by these assumptions and bovine garbage.

wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

Well it's time to highlight some more bs I think. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: There are a few scientists, like me who agree that radiometric dating is not real science. Interesting. How do you define yourself as a scientist? I'd suggest that the minimum required to do so would be to have an article published in a scientific journal.  Peer review is one of the foundations of science so it's seems to be a pretty basic criteria. I would probably stretch it slightly further though and suggest that to be given credibility the work must be cited by at least one other study also published in the peer reviewed literature. We can discuss the merits of various scientific publications based on impact factor should you wish.

I make my living practicing science in empirical ways.  I do not need validation from people less educated and less intelligent than me.  That is a human weakness to "belong" and is the cause of much ignorance being shared.


wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:   Using ancient rocks (mostly uranium) and the decay of those is really an unknown, because the original bones are not there. Mostly uranium? What about pottasium/argon and rubidium/strontium? How about thorium/lead?

This is another sidestepping sideways logic to throw the readers off the real issues.  Not only are these dating methods based on assumptions, these idiots assume the bones are the same ages as the "dirt" that replaced these bones.  Only an idiot accepts assumptions as being "reality" in science.[/quote]


wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:   There is no carbon no c-14 to date which is a bit more accurate. More accurate? Howso? C14 has a half life, if memory serves, of around 6000 years. I could go and look up the figure. Infact, I will. Turns out to be 5730 years. This means that C14 dating is unlikely to be useful beyond 60 thousand years simply because the quantity of C14 in the sample will have reduced to levels that are too low. Compare this to the other dating methods I mentioned, with half lives measured up to billions of years. A 1% error over a billion years is still going to leave an error of 10 Million years, a 2% error over 100K years is going to give a margin for error of 2000 yeras? So which is more accurate? In absolute terms it's clearly C14. In relative terms, C14 dating would be twice as inaccurate. Now I picked those figures out of thin air to make a point. The point being that you never mentioned relative or absolute accuracy and so your statement is worthless. Dates given by dating methods are given a margin for error based on confidence levels.

Carbon dating is more accurate, because it is only used tomeasuere actual remaining tissue.   They do not need to date the "dirt" around a sample and can date the bones directly because there are still bones to date.  This is very simple to understand, but then you are not capable of understanding, because you are a believer in things that have no scientific basis.   [/quote]


wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: But using radio metric dating on the minerals around an old fossil is a very poor use of assumptions.  There is no way that the minerals around a fossil are the same age as the fossil. So you have no understanding of sedimentary vs igneous or metamorphic rock?  Dating sedimentary rock is of course worthless for determining the age of the deposition, since all you do is find the age of the particular matter. However, when rock is molten its "radiometric clock" is reset, meaning that it is entirely possible to date those rocks. So, find a layer of sedimentary rock containing a fossil, date the igneous rock above and below it, and you set both an upper and lower bound for the age of the depostion sandwiched in between. Does it get you an absolute date of deposition? Of course not, but then nobody claimed it did. It does set upper and lower bounds though, which is all that is really needed.

There have been footsteps of modern people walking that was dated at 3.4 million years, because someone walking with a child stepped in soft lava.   There are upright, modern looking, walking humans being dated at 6.1 million years by this method.  Most of the data is worthless if you allow this concept in your mind.  All this does is screw up the data. [/quote]



wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am:   This is not real science.   Real science does no rely on assumptions of a hypothesis on atomic theory. Hypothesis on atomic theory? You mean, err, atomic theory? Why mention hypothesis at all? On what grounds to you describe it as not real science?

On the grounds that you and I cannot verify this as accurate, no matter how you try.   It is totally based on poor assumptions of some idea of time and of stability in the universe.  At 4.7 billion years, you are about as accurate as .0000026 in the dating, because the calibration is done with C-14 and historical data.  It is basically, nonsense and not science.[/quote]


wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: Basically the dating of fossils that have no remaining organic materials at all is a worthless pursuit.  It is an utter logical fallacy to think that the "dirt" around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones. Which is why the "dirt" around the fossils is not dated to determine the age of the fossil. Lucky that, ain't it.

wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: Keep in mind that I came to my own conclusions long before I read any of these other people's works. I get the distinct impression that you came to your own conclusions long before you were educated about any aspect of science and have since put up the shutters.

Actually, I came to my conclusions after keeping an open mind and keeping a huge distance on idiotic people who just accept things on faith and belief as you do.

If you were a real scientist, you would have the same conclusions, but you are indoctrinated and do not have the capacity to think for yourself.[/quote]


wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:47am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:29am: It is just a total logical fallacy that 1/ the methods are 100% accurate and 2/ dating the minerals around a petrified (replacement or recrystallization fossil) fossil is even logical at all.  What does the dirt have in common with the original bone? A fallacy that dating methods are 100% accurate? I agree. Good that this is only your straw man and not what the science actually says, isn't it. I'm noticing a pattern, you love to argue against straw men. Why don't you dissect one of those papers. Indeed I have one here for you, no need to go and find one. "Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals" Article published by "Richard G. Fairbanksa, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Richard A. Mortlocka, Tzu-Chien Chiua, b, Li Caoa, b, Alexey Kaplana, Thomas P. Guildersonc, d, Todd W. Fairbankse, Arthur L. Bloomf, Pieter M. Grootesg and Marie-Josée Nadeaug" This particular paper can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4GFV5WR-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1104303442&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0efac926fae0c5e855e0d0997f253dab Now you need a subscription to be able to read this, but I'm sure that a man such as yourself, a real scientist, will have access to scientific journals. Indeed if you have read 200,000 papers it is a reasonable conclusion that you have access to essentially all science journals currently available. of course if you don't I can find you another article that does not require a subscription. This one seems perfect though, since it covers calibration curves, multiple independent means of calibrating radiometric dating.

This method is the same stuff just more refined.  They take about 10,000 years of known data and project that out as if it was real. There is no way to know the conditions that created that matter, or if volcanic ash and lava is the same as it is today.  You think about this for a while.

This idea that these pseudo scientists take liberties and use faith and belief to project on this.

There is no way the dirt around a replacement fossil is the same age as the original bones.  It is an utter logical fallacy.

prolescum wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 5:57am:

I haven't had the time to check out your links, but from my understanding, radiometric dating is not just dating carbon-14 (radiocarbon dating), but encompasses a gamut of methods including Uranium-lead dating, Samarium-neodymium dating, Potassium-argon dating methods amongst many others. I also understand that the further back in time you wish to date, the harder it is due to the length of time isotopes are available (ie they degrade), but the by-products of the decay are then used. Administrator, is this the correct understanding of the methodology you dispute? Without having checked your links, can you please articulate why you think this method is faulty, and on what basis you dispute the methods used? Thanks.

These moron evotards all say the same thing, like I discuss anything to do with carbon dating.  Carbon dating is impossible on fossils that are millions of years old or the ones they want to believe are millions of years old.  My video discribes completely the process of how "replacement" fossils are dated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ

The earth is very very old. Its the age that is young.

Try to imagine how it was to try and come up with any methods to date any object.

These people who were the pioneers of radiometric dating realized that they must use historical data in order to find the date with any accuracy.

In the beginning these were honest people with an honest quest and they followed the real scientific methods.

I really don't think they would like to see what has happened with their hard work to validate this system of dating. They did all they could to make this a real science and now we have unsubstantiated assumptions running the show.

Until we have much better ways to date fossils, or anything, we have to take all this radiometric dating with a huge "grain of salt"..   That means to realize that it is inaccurate, because it cannot be verified against anything.

Imagine you are on a dark night, black, no moon, and you are standing at the end of a crooked 47 mile road. You only have a small flashlight that can extend its light beam only 6 inches. 

How much do you know about the road when you only have 6 inches that you can see?  The rest is a guess base on what you can see. 

With old time dating methods they compared against tree rings, and historical data to form an foundation for "carbon 14" dating.  This gave the ability to make adjustments and have some level of calibration. Without verifiable calibration on actually documented data, there is no radiometric dating.

These were real scientists and what we have today is a joke.  The whole of this is now extended beyond any reasonable accuracy.  They have no clue if the current methods are accurate at all, but they assume they are.

There is absolutely NO WAY to verify or calibrate using the latest metering methods.

Until we have space travel and can check on the conditions of matter far away from us that we can see by the light rays and the Doppler shift and actually go there and date from those astrophysical objects, we are in the dark ages of radiometric dating.

Without calibration points of at least 100 million years of verifiable data, there is no accuracy at all.

I calculated the degree of accuracy we have now at .0000026  plausibility of any accuracy. That is not good.
I would never make a bet with those odds.

Assumptions are not scientifically verifiable data.

If this "science" were to be in a court trial to determine the validity of this method it would not be a good thing.

Here is a mock up of a trial:

Lawyer:   "Do you have any historical or physical evidence/data to use to calibrate beyond 10,000 years"

"Science": "No"

Lawyer: "What method do you use to determine if this method is accurate to 4.7 Billion years?"

"Science":  "Assumption"

Lawyer:  "Does that mean you believe this is accurate and that is why you  use it?"

Science:  "Yes."

Lawyer:  "Do you actually have any data to base this assumption on?"

Science:  "No."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T3rEX4zq_4

Scientists are so afraid of the truth, that they will avoid any possible "evidence" that is contrary.

I have seen this for over 42 years.  When I first studied this crap religious belief of Evodelusionism, I discovered all the logical fallacies and how people were "obviously" forcing their beliefs on evidence.

I figured that this crap would run its course and be dropped like the "turd" that it is.  Instead they have found even more ways to keep all form of truth out of science and keep science in the dark ages of "politically controlled" religious beliefs in mythological ideology.

I had faith in scientists.  This was when I was 16 years old.  I had not fully realized how stupid people can be and how easily they give up their natural need for wanting the truth.

It is much safer to just stuff your brain in a "closet" of emotionally driven human garbage and "conform", than to actually become a real objective scientist.

If you don't start to listen to the evidence, you  will never be a scientist.  This religious nonsense of Evodelusionism has retarded biology long enough.

This hiding of data, from the public has been going on for a long time.  I have watched this for 42 years.

I find that students do not know all of the "findings" of fossils that negate this belief in magical "evolution".  Students don't even know this data exists.

As soon as some paleontologist find data that is opposite to the belief it disappears.  Now days you  have to be fast to catch it.  Paleontologists don't realize that these new findings are being disregarded as fast as they show up and it has been that way for as long as I have studied this.

The DNA shows clearly that there is no evolution. There is only a constant reduction in genetic coding; gene function loss, the real mutations cause defects in the genome known as genetic diseases.

All of the oldest fossils are far more elaborate and more complex that the creatures that have "evolved" and  speciated into degraded versions of the original creatures.

---